Duality Becoming-Time

I knew Einstein; Einstein was a friend of mine. You are no Einstein, Fresco.



Here we are discussing this very matter...and he said you were full of soup!

In any case, I suspect the notion "I do not know" probably applies in this question more than you will ever acknowledge...and that is fine with me. Just wanted to say, Hello!"

absolutely, bc absolute mean infinite different values of truth being constant superiority so superiority on superiority so always more superiority exponentially while also truth is logical ways no nothing really true about it but the will to take advantage of
this is absolutely so absolute nature truth

but relatively is a different story, so yes where u say i dont know i say im not that, this is everything and nothing, im freedom of everything and nothing bc absolutely they exist, since one cant mean to know itself it would b crazy it is itself the most, and since absolute is what is never relative then what exist cant b known, so not knowin is relatively true which is a certain value when relative truth win over by being more true then absolute truth

but it doesnt make anything wrong alive, like it would b advocated
as if sayin i dunno mean that who knows is clever
or that who doesnt know is givin up
or that teachers must increase around

what i dont know need to become relative true is the lightest push possible to say, i dont know bc i am not that and i am else but absolute is first and relative is after, then relative is more true bc that sound more kind of truth

free conceptions not conceptions to freed

and the proof is what up sound once sayin that truth is freedom only

which objectively is superiority since any then is free and all, and since it must b objective and become it more since truth then only superiority would b true absolute existence of freedom, when freedom by definition cant b defined nor identified nor seen nor being

why superiority is the rule of objective existence bc freedom is the exclusive true superiority
that is why inferiority is first by enjoyin to condition the limits of superiority in havin to b real as existence

here another truth appear

what exist must b truly superior then, do more superior then infinite superiority, that is how it can stay true so superior and free while existin real constantly since existence is free so true

then here again it proves that relative is superior truth else

what is else cant erase else

absolute value cant b known by relative but relative can know that certainly absolute value exist since else and before relatively so true truth value must b there too at some points

my guess is that absolute value is existence right sense so positive opportunities of being objectively right

so absolute value is the truth of opportunism

which prove that liars are pretendin being opportunists that is why they always reveal how they never care for opportunities really they are pervert mean seekin to enjoy any perspective of true superiority being forced to limits in havin to exist
it is not even the opportunity to pretend being superior then, they really love inferiority and keep lyin they love inferiority bc they hate the truth so they dont love inferiority even really
they hate superiority why\/ bc they want to enjoy being themselves they dont want to get up or beyond or evolve, they want to enjoy themselves at any possible occasion, it is life to see itself objectively in everything and enjoyin it

that is why right people are the ones that never look alive

life is always evil
objective is to absolute superiority
subjects are to relative freedom while freedom is true superiority

Regarding your principles:
I do not feel comfortable with philosophical SYSTEMS, since each part is so "logically/artificially dependent on all others--one fails and the entire pizza goes. I simply prefer ad hoc insights, or "glimpses" of reality. Contradiction is no problem since each intuitive insight stands by itself at particular moments.
At the same time I do sense that Reality is unitary, the principle of holism--all is interdependent (a contradiction?). This pertains more to your notion of items in a dynamic FIELD than than it does to parts of a static SYSTEM.
I accept the principle of Revision in the sense that all ideas and "truths" are provisional--i.e., subject to change--because of the acquisition of new information and because the world is a field of changing processes.
I agree that (by definition) "systems" do not tolerate contradictions--that's their fundamental limitation--but Reality is the process of often contradicting processes.
Philosophy may be, as you say, more than therapeudic but it is at least that (same for art)

in other words provin infinite value of anything which reveal the lie that claim opposites as the only way of things existence

so in other words, we could say that it means how freedom since it is the truth cant exist but relatively so through objective freedom realities so only if else concept exist and that in depth when freedom cannot b itself since freedom cant limit its fact, then freedom is by being else freedom source and so it explains the ways of existence always

Firstly, I do not care about what you "feel" about philosophical systems; I care about what you "know" about them.

Secondly, I sense that you really don't want to get your feet wet when it comes to systematizing. You argue, and correctly, that systems are apt to disintegration if, and when, an axiom, definition, or assumption is false or rejected. This is always true for deductive systems, but not always the case for dynamic systems. Depdends on the part in which that piece plays within the overall context of the system.

Now, I can sympathize with your aversion towards systematizing; but on the other hand I don't. Why? Because humans have to commit themselves to a certain set of beliefs and knowledge claims. We can't be constantly open to mere possibilities. In other words, we oftentimes need to stick our necks out.

And this whole "glimpse" of reality talk is nonsense. A human doing that wouldn't get very far. Even if "glimpses" of reality are relative to a place and time, they are not separate from the indivdual experiencing it, and we know that an indvidual always has a web of beliefs and knowledge claims that they are committed to. So, even if an isolated "glimpse" is non-contradictory, it doesn't matter. Why? Because contradictions arise when something is taken in conjunction with something else. That's what a contradiction is (~A&A). If this is the case, which it is, then you're mistaken about contradictions, and hence about "glimpses" of reality.



If you're a correlationist (being is inseparable from thought, thought is inseparable from being), then the last remark about reality is nonsense. Reality is the process of often contradicting what we think about those processes. Here we have a correlation between our experiences, systems, and reality, which are correlated.

Can you make an argument supporting the claim that philosophy is "at least" therapeudic?

As far as I can tell, what we "feel" (i.e., insights, intuitions, and other glimpses of reality) is essentially--like it or not--what philosophy is about. What we "know" is what we "think" we know, and despite the fact that we may assume that our deductions from axioms are more certain than mere intuitions, that is not necessarily so. I even think that our "foundational" axioms--like the confidence we have in deductive logic-- are no more than reflections of our species bound neurological predispositions. As you can see I am an epistemological skeptic--I share Nietzsche's glimpse that God is dead; we are without foundational absolutes. With these claims I claim to be sticking my neck out.
I'll come to the therapy issue later.

IMAGES OF PHILOCHRONY (video)

These images are about my conception of time, becoming-time duality and mind. The nature of time. La Filocronia y la Dualidad devenir-tiempo.

Watch video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rx7dYSKh5A

CASES OF CONCEPTUAL MERGER

1 - Aristotle merged objectively ideas and things, which later Kant took to subjective plane.

2 - Electromagnetism merges electricity with the property of magnets of attracting iron.

3 - The Issac Newton's theory of universal gravitation merged the Earth with outer space.

4 - The Albert Einstein's concept of space-time is another case of conceptual merger, but reduced the four dimensions to just two: the mesh of space-time, which according to Einstein is curved by the action of gravity.

5 - The concept of becoming-time merges objectively these two important variables in the universe. Time is independent of space.

The first is a case of Philosophy; the second, third and fourth are cases of Physics and the fifth case corresponds to Philochrony. Physics describes motion in space and for this science time doesn't exist or is an illusion.

Are you saying that Aristotle was the first to commit the error of reification?

Why do you think reification is an error?

STATEMENTS OF PHILOCHRONY

1 - The existence of the becoming-time is an axiom.

2 - Time becomes (flows) from the future to the present. The continuous present or the now is the future becoming in reality which allows things to evolve.

3 - The sense of time from past to future is an illusion. In this illusion are based progress bars (a video) in Computer science. Think about the images and sound of a video are the continuous present. The circle of the progress bar seems to go from past to future.

Words are not identical to the things they refer to--recall Korsybski's principle, the map is not the territory.

...oh I don't know about that...its very ironic that sort of assessment seams more to me as yet another form of materialism...words represent and are functions and systems of functions as anything else beyond words whatever that might be...the reason we can say what you were saying is not because there is a fundamental distinction in nature between words and things but from where I stand because there might be a difference in "depth resolution" between what else aside that are 2 equal things in nature...on this light we would say a representation only differs from the object it describes in terms of being an object with less resolution then the object it describes plus the "interface" it carry' s within its script regarding the decoding/encoding agent and its own functional self aware apparatus...

...existence does not precede essence for the very simple reason even if all we have was the phenomena alone, it immediately forms a set, a thing in itself...of course such abstract object is meaningless as a thing in itself but you guys take a step further and go on for straight denying any abstract objects as things in themselves...no wonder, most of you come from humanity's and have a bad time with abstract objects since high school...the all current of thought is embedded with this problem...

It is fair to acknowledge a Noumena, a thing in itself, as something which is the very ground of space/time does not exist in the sense of being there once it is everywhere...rather we should look at its being as the very ground of all existence...its a "constrainer" !
(Its essence is Unity !)