Fresco's Dilemma

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Razzleg, one good thing that may come from this thread is the sincere request that you continue to participate in our philosophy forums. Thanks for an excellent and constructive post.

Thanks, but i can't promise anything regarding forum posts. i felt the lasts one came off as bitchy; and i don't really want to add something like that, when it is obviously already abundant on the internet in general. i'm sure that i'll try to contribute occasionally, but i'll also attempt to retrain myself to those areas where i might actually count as contributing. Usually, when i check up on these forums, someone else has already posted the only useful thing i would have had to add to a thread. i usually appreciate your posts, for example, and while there is the occasional nitpicky post i'd like to make to the odd thread -- i often dissuade myself from making it, since it seems as if it would distract from the main thrust of a given thread.

i'll be honest with you, when i fist started searching out philosophy forums on the internet, it was with the idea of juggling ideas with distant, disinterested parties. For the fun of the the philosophic enterprise, as it were. i've since come to the conclusion that such parties are a rare prize, enter- or otherwise, and disassociated myself with the same unease. i find myself not entirely capable of not checking these forums, occasionally, however; and i will try to keep my rare contributions useful.

And i understand why you would support the general statements of Frecso and Cyracuz. They are both intelligent posters; and I often agree with the current point they are making (within limits), without necessarily agreeing with their general povs. That's my problem, obviously, but one that i only, occasionally, and often immaturely, attempt to respond to (as in the case above.)

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

fresco's cheerleaders?

Just so you know, I go my own way. Fresco and I just happen to be moving in the same general direction.

Hmmm...perhaps mine was not an entirely just response...but let's face it: In this thread you were responding to another thread that was dismissive of another poster. Regarding that, where it might have failed to outright mock him, it certainly diminutized him. It's hard to imagine that you could pretend yourself immune to the same.

And while i'm certainly willing to take back the obviously over-enthusiastic characterization of you as an enthusiast; it's still difficult for me to refute my impression that in every thread wherein i've read your (your, plural inclusive, mind you) posts, i've never been able to duck fast enough to avoid the flailing arms of mutual backslapping that occurs when you and Fresco meet in a thread.

Have you read any, or many, Maturana books? Have they satisfied your philosophic thirst? I've only read one, "The Tree of Knowledge", and while i found it interesting and enlightening, i don't know know that it was entirely convincing. I don't object to all of Fresco's posts, he raises a great many important issues, but he just as often insists that certain philosophic, or "philosophic", questions are meaningless by pretending to knowledge that he can't produce. He sometimes bullies certain questioners, although without being offensive, into dismissing questions that they might otherwise be convinced are quite relevant. If you can't answer certain questions, even if you find them irrelevant -- might it be more honest to admit that you don't think they can be answered, rather than pretend that they had already been comprehended by another, who's questions were quite different?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

@Fil:

Quote:
"Does the mind that minds all minds who not comprehend themselves comprehends itself ? or is it the world ?
How should Fresco solve this problem ?
Anybody up for helping him out ?"

I dunno -- but if the mind that minds all minds fails to comprehend itself, does that mean that it fails to comprehend the world? And even if so, might it still comprehend some portion of itself, even as it makes up some portion of the world?
Why should he?
Yep, why not?

Phtttttttttttt...Boy, i'm a ridiculous bastard...

Hi, first things first to the remaining I will reply later...

No...you see the world also contains self imagery and observation...I never opposed some of the things rationalists and Idealists defend, namely interpretation...but who is interpreting ? and how does it really look like ? my question with it is about control or more abstractly set size...When I say I believe in reality and not in mind that is because I don't believe in free will although I accept awareness...the thing is if I throw myself out of the window and imagine I am a bird I certainly will not fly...

Hey, Fil, you have a lot of responses to my original post, and I will try to treat each of them accordingly --but i thought that i would treat this one first. i'm enjoying this thread, but i'm afraid that i disagree with both you and your absent interlocuter, Fresco. i don't feel that i can represent his argument in this thread adequately, but i do want to present mine.

i approach philosophy from a ground-up perspective. This, i think that one might appreciate facts about both oneself and selfhood, in general, without necessarily making all of the connections between. And i think that certain facts regarding the world might be established without worldliness being defined. Thus, certain the existence of selfhood and worldliness could be accepted without acknowledging the two to be identity of the two, however complementary the two are in existence.

The world includes the distinction between self and other, it does not dissolve it.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
For example, certainty is a future-oriented, subjective value

Certainty is not a future oriented subjective value although perceptively is framed in those terms quite often...Certainty is about whether the world makes sense and is a self relational entity with its parts or not, and we, just as an ant are part of the world...your way of talking about it puts certainty at transcendental length and yet measurement works fine to an extent...you make it sound like a coincidence...but perhaps you are wrong.
I see certainty framed like one can see high and low resolution photography...equally there are high and low resolutions questions...certainty is not about an infinite question matching reality at some point...there are no infinite questions...rather certainty is between a finite in scope meaningful question, itself a reduction of reality, matching a portion of the phenomena in reality, that is, representative set compression, pattern gathering ...you see neither a low nor an high resolution photo are lies (nor a camera is a subject)...they just can be more or less informative...questions are not right and wrong, rather they frame more or less information relations...questions also have a context beyond which they make no sense...certainty happens when a limited in scope question matches a limited in scope answer, or a limited, or local phenomena...when both achieve symmetry...people have this very wrong impression about the truth being something like an omnipresent ensemble impression of the world...while I believe truth is just about the right order the world can be framed from a certain point...if I see the world from the moon I am certain what I see is not about all what is going on in the world...but I like to believe given I am in the moon what I see is a truthful part of the world...if I ask perspective moon like questions about the world they are not wrong nor they are incomplete...they just ask about what they see, which is real is happening, is valid and deserves a matching answer, something with similar resolution...framing what I see, as off world, as a personnel construction, as being me against the world, and then in terms of being right and wrong, is almost Christian like reasoning...what I see if in the world , if a portion of the world, is valid, and deserves a fitting interpretation...that is what I gather, deserves to be rationalized. Its not wrong nor incomplete it simply has its rightful place.When we ask a five inch question about the universe, it certainly is because there is a five inch perspective of it, and a five inch phenomena going on, no matter if such phenomena can fit bigger sets for bigger questions and look like an entirely different pattern...certainly is not because we are constructing a "new world" or a "fake world", rather we are just a pattern limited extent with pattern limited experiences...

Hmmm..some of what you say is true, but not quite as i see it, pardon my reservations. It seems that you are attempting to spatialize a certain quality of time in the question of certainty that i see as irreversible. Certainty is a quality of consciousness, one that occurs, or doesn't, as a consequence of time.

Let us use your metaphor of camera focus -- imagine that lens quality is of quite primitive value, and that in order to focus a camera lens, in order to capture the image clearly, one had to advance or retreat accordingly. But the goal, the telos, is exactly the one of maximizing information --this needn't occur at the maximal focus on detail, mind you. This spatial advance or retreat is a temporal process, a situation of call and response between a perception and instrument regarding a third party: the object under observation. This triangulation is under constant surveillance regarding their approximate relative positions.

Thus the question of the "correct" focus of the observer, is under the constraint of multiple conditions, which are not merely the question of spatial harmony, but temporal harmony. A person may be in just the right position to see "the truth" and yet not see it. Timing + placement is the prerogative of correctness, not merely placement; and i see this process to be a temporal matter.

And yet,while one person can be sure of correctness (the relationship of the various observational factors), "certainty" can only be verified by others after the fact via the consequences --despite the distance of observer, instrument, and object. Only third party agreement, and i do not mean necessarily verbal agreement --but more likely predictable reaction -- produces certainty.

That is, to a certain degree, the meaning of scientific experiment. Certainty, which is never quite closed to debate, is the result of experiment. All certainty prior to experiment is false certainty -- not non-existent, but merely mistaken confidence in a theory that subsequent observation has not bourne out. And while certainty is never certain, and while doubt may be justified; all the same -- certainty can be pragmatically exercised.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If Fresco is a pattern in the world and not the world what Fresco sees or comprehends of himself is also a reduced pattern of himself and not the entirety of himself...Fresco better be the world if Fresco wants to really know Fresco...so, again...can Fresco comprehend himself ?
You see the question was serious although it was framed like a joke...Fresco has no way of knowing if he is a mind, or a pattern in the world he experiences as a mind...

From my perspective, no. Fresco can be a pattern in the world, and fail to comprehend the connection between the manner of his inclusion in the world, regardless of the degree of his own self perception. Portions of each are available to perception absent of perception of that relationship, ie mutual limit. it seems to me that while the self is a reflection of the world,their mutual order reflecting one another, the depths achieved in the understanding of the one need not be reflected in an understanding the other.

That is to say that, while the microcosm might contain the macrocosm, one might comprehend the two with varying degrees of accuracy, partly because -- as reflections of one another, duplicates with a difference -- they are the same without being identical in the slightest.

Do not mistake me, i detest Derridean deconstruction because i view it as facile. But i cannot dismiss the problems introduced by differance, even as i spurn the casual "deconstructionist" attempt to co-exist with it literarily. i feel that this existential "cosmic reflection effect" requires a more pragmatic response, the meaning and value of which i continue to ascertain.

Nevertheless, and i know that i have long ago abandoned your question, i believe that the relationship of part and whole, the question of their relationship, co-dependence , and order, resides in the question of a mutual process, rather than a state. Thus the question of patterns is not one of the comprehensive, but an ongoing one that allows for misunderstanding.

This is another post that qualifies as mostly nonsense...I've had too much time to myself -- no need, under those circumstances, to make myself understood to anyone else.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

In this thread you were responding to another thread that was dismissive of another poster.

In this thread I was initially responding to Fil's rather exaggerated obscurantism. That coupled with his raping the English language makes him damn near incomprehensible.
Fil is a person who seeks to ostracize anyone who deviates from what may be considered the socially accepted opinion by ridiculing and insulting them. We are lucky that most people on a2k realize that he's a babbling idiot, or else the tolerance for what can be posted on these forums would be very low.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No worry about the multiple posts, as the fragmentation of my op shows: i don't have a good grasp of all the forum mechanics, myself. Perhaps it's a series of glitches, but let's face it -- probably not. Human error or computer error, there's no sin involved. (Boy, that sounded pompous -- the very opposite of my intent...)

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
The problem is that "certainty" has no ontological value. Meanings can be certain, in the moment -- if one is willing to project them thus, but the value of the same is not. The use of a word depends on both the meaning and the value -- each of which may be measured on some abstruse, theoretical gradient -- and both depend upon an otherwise invisible pivot -- an uncertain observer-inclusive reality, perhaps?

Of course it has ontological value...it matches an experience...the problem goes in knowing what the experience itself matches...as someone said mistakes are still true mistakes...phenomenally they are an object matching a certain local context of information assembly in the subject...such representation doesn't come out of the blue...what we are wondering is how a given pattern, a perception, fits other patterns, or imitates them at a lower resolution, how its resolution matches the resolution of those patterns...its not supposed to be a photocopy...knowledge is not all Being, although a valid part of being, itself an object in Being, it captures aspects of reality and not projects them...I am convinced the experience of the knower is itself a valid part of the world, and not an off world constructed UFO...that in turn simply means that a "mistake" in perception is justified...itself an object... itself a pattern in the world...but how can it correspond if smaller you wonder ? and I ask you how big was the question ? What prompted the size of the question was not itself a true perceptional object ? Those this mind that mind is the origin of everything ? No we don't know what the **** "mind" is...be we can be certain at least "world" intends to mean much more.

Well, i agree with you almost totally, that was my point. It's not that "certainty" doesn't exist, but rather its value within an ontological inquiry is useless. Epistemology is a pursuit of the way in which we know things, a pragmatic, variable question, in my opinion. Because the way in which we know depends to some degree on what we "know". When inquiring as to "what is", that is "Being" (capital B [or lower-caes b, really]) does not require certainty. If anything, it requires a great deal of dubeity. Perhaps i am granting greater powers to intuition than they have ever earned, and i am, but a certain openness is required for an honest ontological inquiry -- one that cannot tolerate the restrictions placed on it by the need of certainty.

If Kant was worth a damn, and i believe he was worth at least that, he persuaded most people who would approach the question of ontology that transcendental questions of being must delve behind questions of ex posteriori reasoning...Of course, this means that the larger portion of such thought will be proven wrong. However, ontology is not a question of certainty, it is a questioning of possibility. In so far as it is that, it relies on the test for certainty as a check, but not necessarily a balance...

And with that, i'll sign off for the night. i assume that Fresco will maintain his dignity, and refrain from showing up in this thread (although i'd be interested if he did, i've probably abused his ideas beyond recognition.). But i wouldn't mind if Cyracuz put down his pom-poms and reached for more cowbell -- or beared his fangs. i'll say without prompting that much of what i've said is probably absolute nonsense. It wasn't entire intentional, and i wouldn't mind a good bruising retort -- i could probably use it.

(Y'know, so much of what i type out sounds [in my head] like it belongs to the sort of imaginary, long-deceased English college grad talk produced by the worst BBC period-hack. i'm just a texas-born hick trying to sound smart...i reckon. Sorry for the ridiculous diction, i'm not sure where it comes from...probably from watching too much BBC and wanting to sound smart.)

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
In this thread you were responding to another thread that was dismissive of another poster.

In this thread I was initially responding to Fil's rather exaggerated obscurantism. That coupled with his raping the English language makes him damn near incomprehensible.
Fil is a person who seeks to ostracize anyone who deviates from what may be considered the socially accepted opinion by ridiculing and insulting them. We are lucky that most people on a2k realize that he's a babbling idiot, or else the tolerance for what can be posted on these forums would be very low.

Hmmm...i'm not sure i remember correctly, but i seem to remember that Fil might not be a first-language English speaker. Regardless, i've seem posts by Fil that, irrespective of whether i agreed with his point, were dazzling compared to the person to which he was responding, without condescendingly correcting their grammar.

It's the internet, it's the modern proving ground that language is fluid -- deal with it.

In all honesty, i wouldn't be surprised to find that while Fil may hold some moralistic mainstream views (some of which i find ridiculous), yet he generally proposes no view that isn't peculiar to himself. And his idiom is generally such, that I can't believe that it exerts any sort of social pressure

(...Of course, i also can't pretend to have read/remember a lot of threads to which he may have contributed, and i wouldn't be surprised if i were told/reminded that he has made some sort of social statement that i would strongly disagree with -- sexist, homophobic, antisemitic [all positions i find intolerable], or else something generally intolerant -- but i'm not currently in a position to judge that.)

i can't say who Fil is as person, just as i can't honestly say anything about your actions irl. (Although, i have ascertained that he isn't a policy maker.) i've said so many stupid things on the internet that i've suspended judgement, as far as i am able, on their behavior beyond my personal electronic horizon...as well as a good deal of that within it. I still get annoyed, i still get tetchy -- but i try to limit that as best i'm able (and those limits are governed by a requirement for reasonable discourse). i will say, that it seems unlikely that someone who takes part in a philosophy forum as often as Fil seems to do could be all bad.

Let's face it, were your intentions in this thread to represent the weak, or, as you perceive it, were you exercising your muscle as a representative of the moral majority of this forum to slap Fil back? (Fil, if you reveal yourself to be a complete ass subsequently, i will be much displeased...)

As to his apparent indulgences in willful obscurantism: that is absolutely true -- but i've found that he rarely refuses to exchange with others within a given thread. Even when his point is, to my my mind, ridiculous, and ridiculously unyielding, he does not fail to try and construct common ground for discussion. Good lord -- i sound like i'm trying to make him out to be a saint -- three more days on this forum and i'd probably be trying to burn him at the stake... phhhhht, who gives a ****...?

Ugh, take it or leave it, Cyr, you didn't respond to a single point i made in my op in this thread -- bring it intellectually, or go home.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

Hmmm...i'm not sure i remember correctly, but i seem to remember that Fil might not be a first-language English speaker.

Neither am I. But I don't insult and try to ridicule people for not making sense when the reason they don't make sense is because I don't understand the language......

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

Hi Raz appreciate your effort to respond to all my babbling around the thread and will try to resume for now some points we have in common and that you perhaps misunderstood as disagreements...after all to my view we agree more then we disagree, my stance is middle ground although it might seam the opposite due to conflict with some people less assertive to opinion differences...For instance my reference to space perspectives always meant to include time within it, so no disagreement in there, how else would I explain entropy and still maintain the usefulness of certainty within a given arrangement of space time...certainty apply s to what we can know at a given time and while functionality which was observed won't change, unless rules evolve themselves, contextual and conceptual interpretations of events can change the scope of said functionality and how it is perceived. Another aspect I think was also not clarified concerns the problem of the self and identity...the "I" which I did n´t ever intended to reduce as a phenomena, phenomena can´t be reduced obviously, was being conceptually de constructed, or I was trying to make the point that while perspectives are all phenomenal "I's" that in turn doesn't mean a transcendent barrier exits in between each focal point, on the contrary perspectives form a whole coherent pattern, and in that sense they are diluted in it...from the beginning I never presented myself as an hardcore empiricist, although I lean to it at middle ground, I try to incorporate both fields because I think both have some good contributions to make...my disagreement with this particular group is that their arguments are not honest once the stance they take can be presented against their very own conclusions...later on I will make an extended response to some of your opinions, thanks for your time and interest !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Our difference as I see it is that while we agree that perspectives have limits on establishing ontological knowledge, whatever knowledge we can retrieve from functionality is not wrong, but pattern coupling incomplete...meaning that whatever works or functions that we can map, is valid immutable knowledge upon reality, although its conceptual and contextual frame may evolve in the future to a totally different view on how it fits an unfolding bigger picture...bottom line I don't think reality is transcendent, but transcendental, once valid patterns can be mapped, apprehended or captured although we can't quite tell how they fit a future contextual progress in space time...the problem of completion after all...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...what we miss in "redness" is not the pattern we describe, but how that pattern couples with our own pattern, and exclude itself from ourselves, once the perception of our own pattern is always under the filter of our own pattern, it can't possibly ever, be objectively observed, and through it the world...knowledge wont be ever complete as long as an "I" is trying to capture it all within without explaining himself, which he can't...that was all along my point...the mapped pattern is relationally right, but what it fits contextually in a final set we won't ever know...nevertheless we can know all the remaining from our own perspective....that doesn't mean that our view is transcendent, but only transcendental...there is symmetry and "patternicity" in between patterns...the world is not a UFO, nor the world is "us" alone, there is a coupling there in the relation...a relation with many things...

There is something as a pseudo completion which to my view is possible to an extent...that is, every time we change our focal location point from where we view the world through space time we become the "other" and can look back to ourselves, where we used to be, from another filters point of view...of course we just ended up entrapped again in a new focal point...but all in all and given symmetric relations I like to believe we get a sense of orientation in between...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...thus the conclusion that when we change our stance, everything changes, and yet, in all that change, very much stays the same...we, each of us, through the "I", as a focal point, ad very little to the world to concede that we can't know it only because we are coupled with it...more then that, from all we see hardly that coupling would make the world "ours", even if the perspective is ours...all that diversity coming from afar...our own weight in it is so diluted...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...further still, from a deterministic point of view, as a pattern between patterns, "we" don't control anything,"we" don't create anything, not even ourselves...thus "the world" can never be the product of ourselves...but ourselves and ourselves view, from top down, the product of the world...

...yet another erroneous view from "Fresco's gang"...to think that "our view" is really ours...without ever being able to tell what "ours" means...again "ours" is a diluted point in a cube...and while its very much true, that the all cube changes from our point of view..."ours", is always jumping around from point to point, in time space...the "I", the continuity of the "I", is many ! ( The "World" is saved... Wink

)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...oh indulge my arrogance for a sec Raz...my views may be anything but outrageous...to much bright maybe...(sardonic)
I like my semantics better even with all the English "fluid noise" I apply to it... Wink

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...I really hope in all honesty and arrogance that you appreciate what I did with the all idea of the "I" back there...ripe it apart its not an exaggeration...I am certainly conscientious of it...for every tone of trash I write I bring about one or two gems now and then, which is more then I can say from a great deal of complainers around who never advance a personnel position or something innovative...only cliché after cliché...again indulge my arrogance, but much of it comes out of the right of defending myself from envious foxes and wolfs, that in all irony, rather pray on language, then meaning...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...I really hope in all honesty and arrogance that you appreciate (paid attention) on what I did with the all idea of the "I" back there...ripe it apart its not an exaggeration...I am certainly conscious on how it has something important to say on the all matter of "us" vs "world" all idea...I like to think for every tone of trash I write I bring about one or two little gems now and then, which is more then I can say from a great deal of complainers around who never advance a personnel position or something innovative...only cliché after cliché...again indulge my arrogance, but much of it comes out of the right of defending myself from envious foxes and wolfs, that in all irony, rather pray on language, then meaning...never mind the ranting here...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

i'm here, however briefly to say, " Fil, simmer down." i can't pretend to appreciate all of the nuances you gave the place-holder "I" in the last few posts...at least not in the last scan i gave those posts. That's perhaps unworthy of the thought you put into them, but i promise you that i will re-read them -- i'm actually eager to understand them. i think that you are a much more complicated and sophisticated thinker than is often (apparently) understood (at least on this forum).

i hope that respect is understood when, upon evaluating other threads, i admit that i am beginning to understand why Cyr, and others like him, respond to your posts as they obviously do -- i am beginning to feel that, you should take a little more time in explaining your responses, making them more relate-able in casual experience. While i think that our perspectives, while both equally abstract and yet different, are at least communicable; and i also think that our perspectives are at their most communicable when reduced to their most "experiential" terms. My thought tends to shape itself in highly abstract terms, yours seems similar. It is so easy to describe patterns where no material signifiers yield possible contradictions. But if either of us was willing to break our own arguments down to the level of basic obseration, we'd both be more persuasive. What I'm trying to say is, that while both of us may feel harried , or pressed by circumstance to answer to our interlocuters to answer for our opinions , i think it is is mostly an effect of willful (self-willful, mind you) mis-presentation (encouraging misunderstanding.) All of the above is simply a way of saying, slow down and detail your thought process...

i...more than most, understand making a public shorthand of one's own intellectual shorthand, but it isn't actually, in terms of communication, fruitful. Break down the message of your posts into the most meaningfully stunted posts possible...

Although i was a big supporter of Fresco's posts initially ("initially" meaning an early interaction on these forums), i finally ceased to be enamored of them, because i found them totally out-of-joint with an philosophically informed experience of the world...Certainly, he seemed capable of answering "questions"; but he seemed completely unaware or unresponsive to, questioning (as a process.) (Or when he was aware of such, it was as an abstraction, such as "persons" are subject to "questions".)

As for my previous posts, as the source of your responses, Fil...well, i wish that i had spell- and grammar-check available...my previous posts do not always match any examples of basic correct English grammar, and i wish that i could attribute any distortions to my meaning to them, but alas...i cannot. Any vagueness or nonsense in those posts is both an attribute to my own attempts to express my thought and my thought itself...

All i'd like to say, in response to your posts, Fil, is that while we can agree that reality is "incomplete", within the gathered information from various perspectivs -- that the incompleteness is a result of reality-participant irreducibility... not a transcendental process that dismisses those same irreconcilable differences. That is, history is the product of multiple (possibly innumerable, certainly different) observers, not that history produces the same...Transcendence is an existential/ circular condition of experience, rather than a causal/determinative source of superficial differences that might be subsumed and consumed within a common temporal source of events. That is to say, and "that" says a lot of vague things [the things that i counseled against, in this thread], including the possibility that the very concept of origin may surround events as a-phenomenal limit to events, rather than the (n my opinion) more appropriate "meaningful horizon" of observations...

ie...transcendence is an index of perceivable events, rather than an im-perceivable limit to events...

oi, i'm liable to the most abstract examples of nonsense ever...

This statement is partly the product of earlier "mis-"remembered statements you've, Fil, made, not the current debate...Respond as you will. i'll comment later as i'm able.

2 Replies

@Razzleg,

Quote:

...transcendence is an index of perceivable events, rather than an im-perceivable limit to events...

...true but incomplete. The index itself is a limit of its own, and we can only dwell with what we have all right, but the index is transcendent meaningless if continuation is not supposed after it (wherever in it)...you may well argue that such intuition goes against the very meaning of transcendence a bit like asking for the meaning of nothingness, once we cannot frame what we don't know if not by which we already know, in which case re directing we may only speak of what is transcendental, or to mean, that which is on the verge of becoming invisible and yet still accessible...thus to my view it is essential this perception of "farness", on which a progressive loss of direct information upon a system unfolds as it goes...on a first impression we apparently can associate the word meaning, that which is transcendental, in two different ways, either, one is speaking of a progressive impression of a lack of final mechanic connection between phenomena without final proof, the continuum hypothesis problem, or we are speaking of lack of computing power to inquire further...but on a closer look hardly the first possibility makes sense or is valid, as again if such problem did in fact exist we would not even be able to frame anything meaningless on it, therefore in the usage I refer to what is transcendental for lack of computing power, or on the problem of completeness, once what is being questioned from includes what is asking of...the lack of computing power for a final set is mandatory once the inquiry presupposes incompleteness to be an inquiry, thus that the asking agent be contained by something else that he itself cannot contain and yet is asking for...although what he asks off is not transcendent once containing the very asking agent, but transcendental, once dissociation is not possible to compute...

Indulge my attempt of making sense of all this nonsense once it is a genuine attempt even if one on the go upon a very complex problem, but don't bother to care much...later on I will go through some more of what you have posted...again appreciate your input !

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

...transcendence is an index of perceivable events, rather than an im-perceivable limit to events...

...true but incomplete. The index itself is a limit of its own, and we can only dwell with what we have all right, but the index as an index is for assertion of transcendence meaningless if continuation is not supposed after it (wherever in it)...you may well argue that such intuition goes against the very meaning of transcendence a bit like asking for the meaning of nothingness, once we cannot frame to ask what we don't know if not by which we already know, in which case re directing we may only speak of what is transcendental, or to mean, that which is on the verge of becoming invisible and yet still accessible...thus to my view it is essential this perception of "farness", on which a progressive loss of direct information upon a system unfolds as it goes...on a first impression we apparently can associate the word meaning, that which is transcendental, in two different ways, either, one is speaking of a progressive impression of a lack of final mechanic connection between phenomena without final proof, the continuum hypothesis problem, or we are speaking of lack of computing power to inquire further...but on a closer look hardly the first possibility makes sense or is valid, as again if such problem did in fact exist we would not even be able to frame anything meaningless on it, therefore in the usage I refer to what is transcendental for lack of computing power, or on the problem of completeness, once what is being questioned from includes what is asking of...the lack of computing power for a final set is mandatory once the inquiry presupposes incompleteness to be an inquiry, thus that the asking agent be contained by something else that he itself cannot contain and yet is asking for...although what he asks off is not transcendent once containing the very asking agent, but transcendental, once dissociation is not possible to compute...

Indulge my attempt of making sense of all this nonsense once it is a genuine attempt even if one on the go upon a very complex problem, but don't bother to care much...
Later on I will go through some more of what you have posted, again appreciate your input !

1 Reply

Fresco's Dilemma

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know