7
   

The Scope Of All That Is

 
 
RexRed
 
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2013 09:24 am
This topic has been mulling around in my mind for some time now.

I thought I would write about it.

Other names for this thread are, The great fault line or fissure. The straight and narrow way. Dividing line, Cracks in logic.

It seems humans have a propensity to make logic into what they want rather than what it is.

By blind siding ourselves to the contrary we lose sight of the substance of our entire being.

It took me a while but I have compiled a list to try and expose or bring into the light this "great fault". Fault not as in doing something wrong but as in a fault line or divide in the fabric of understanding.

I am curious what this great fault actually could be. How could it have even pervaded our intellect to such a degree that it is part of the fiber and objects of our world?

I will try and reveal this fault line and please give your opinions on what this line actually in essence is. This is the part I have not figured out yet.

Here it is:

Communication <=> Privacy
Energy <=> Damage to the earth
Naked <=> Clothed
Creation <=> Evolution (had to include this one)
Zero <=> One
Good <=> Evil
Darkness <=> Light
Fire <=> Ice
Sun <=> Moon
Law <=> Liberty
Positive <=> Negative
Truth <=> Lies
Fact <=> Fiction
Dominant <=> Passive
Sexuality <=> Innocence
Detail <=> Whole Picture
God <=> Humanity

How do we measure ourselves? To what standard shall we apply?

Night or day? Off or on? True or false? Yes or no... or "maybe"?
It seems you can follow this fault line all the way up through the human experience...

Please respond peeps...

Much love
RR
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 893 • Replies: 16

 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2013 11:00 am
@RexRed,
you forgot cornflakes

crispy<==> mushy
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2013 11:30 am
@RexRed,
It sounds to me like you are talking about dualism.

I think language has something to do with this.
0 Replies
 
mikeymojo
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2013 05:43 pm
@RexRed,
Sounds to me we humans are the fault or fissure in the essence you speak of. No other explanation needed in my eyes.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2013 05:48 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
I am curious what this great fault actually could be.
Rex I see it as partly a rejection of the intuitive, which might prove much more valuable to the race were we to afford it greater legitimacy, at least as a starter

Another is a sort of duality, insisting on absolute distinctions of all sorts in a Universe where nothing is entirely anything and everything is partly something else
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2013 10:26 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
It seems humans have a propensity to make logic into what they want .... By blind siding ourselves to the contrary we lose sight of the substance of our entire being.

As to humans "making logic into what they want", indeed alternatives to classical logic have been invented. The approach of paraconsistent logic is that paradox and contradiction may be interesting rather than just a problem to be solved, of either trying to eliminate the incoherence or discarding the affair as worthless / meaningless. Paraconsistent logic may regard conflicting attributes, forces or ideas as a more widespread phenomenon; rather than the occasional, unbearable oddity falling out of, say, artifacts like naive set theory or linguistic paradoxes (like the Liar's Paradox) which then require creation of ad hoc rules to buttress the late-discovered fragility of the system or avoid the first impressions / circular trap of a stand-alone statement.

As to "blind siding ourselves to the contrary"... If there was a general abhorrence for conflicting properties / circumstances, it would perhaps stem, again, from explosive systems of reasoning. When (for everyday life) not just falling out of any disastrous consequences for survival in our non-abstract world. Classical logic is explosive, it cannot tolerate inconsistency. From contradictory premises, anything can be inferred; "from a falsehood, conclude anything you like", as its whole regulatory framework tumbles down if accepting the former. If assuming something is true leads to an "absurd" state of affairs, a contradiction, then the judgement is that it was incorrect to make that assumption.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 10:28 am
@G H,
G H wrote:

Quote:
It seems humans have a propensity to make logic into what they want .... By blind siding ourselves to the contrary we lose sight of the substance of our entire being.

As to humans "making logic into what they want", indeed alternatives to classical logic have been invented. The approach of paraconsistent logic is that paradox and contradiction may be interesting rather than just a problem to be solved, of either trying to eliminate the incoherence or discarding the affair as worthless / meaningless. Paraconsistent logic may regard conflicting attributes, forces or ideas as a more widespread phenomenon; rather than the occasional, unbearable oddity falling out of, say, artifacts like naive set theory or linguistic paradoxes (like the Liar's Paradox) which then require creation of ad hoc rules to buttress the late-discovered fragility of the system or avoid the first impressions / circular trap of a stand-alone statement.

As to "blind siding ourselves to the contrary"... If there was a general abhorrence for conflicting properties / circumstances, it would perhaps stem, again, from explosive systems of reasoning. When (for everyday life) not just falling out of any disastrous consequences for survival in our non-abstract world. Classical logic is explosive, it cannot tolerate inconsistency. From contradictory premises, anything can be inferred; "from a falsehood, conclude anything you like", as its whole regulatory framework tumbles down if accepting the former. If assuming something is true leads to an "absurd" state of affairs, a contradiction, then the judgement is that it was incorrect to make that assumption.



If absurdity is part of the way of nature then it would seem there are few incorrect assumptions.

Humans have two opposeable hands, feet, eyes, ears, kidneys ovaries, testis, Yet where the body folds (along the fault line) is where the heart, mind (also divided), reproductive and metabolism functions are?

What exactly is this invisible line that intersects the vertical parallels of the human form and condition?

The heard divided in four ventricles it seems also has its "duality"

It seems as if nothing could exist without duality.

Our feelings and taste also seem to have a divide as to sexual preference...

As if each side of sexual preference is an opposeable appendage of emotional substance and taste.

If our understanding has eyes it seems likely that there are two of them...
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 10:44 am
I am thinking that one perspective is that the fault line is the natural result of balance.

What came first, the means or the extremes?

Is balance a result of the fault line or is the fault line a product of balance?

Does the fault line create balance or does balance illustrate an abstract fault out of arbitrary things?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 11:02 am
I think this is related...

How do we define emptiness?

I define it as something that appears empty yet is not necessarily "empty".

The universe appears to be empty but there are infinitesimally small particles that make up even empty space.

So we see that even our physical world is made up of space that appears empty and matter that exists on a more tangible level than how we perceive space. So even on this level we can ask ourselves what exactly is it that divides space and matter? What fault line caused this phenomenon?
mikeymojo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 11:12 am
@RexRed,
Great argument for duality Rex. Could the invisible line be logic itself? It's like we naturally believe the logic of what we experience, such as knowing the sun is in the sky. Yet, part of us always wants to question the logical experiences we know. Our minds don't fully want to believe in the logic it experiences, we want logic to be more than what's logical.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 02:04 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
what exactly is it that divides space and matter?
Rex that's really a good q. Gravity for instance seems to be an area where matter has "pushed some space out of the way"
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 02:16 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:


Here it is:
Law <=> Liberty
I 'll start with this one, Rex:
The jurisdiction of government and personal freedom are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.
That means that the more there is of one, the less there is of the other.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 02:21 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
what exactly is it that divides space and matter?
dalehileman wrote:
Rex that's really a good q.
Gravity for instance seems to be an area
where matter has "pushed some space out of the way"
Is there space inside the matter?

Dale, is gravity "an area", like Iowa ???
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 02:30 pm
@RexRed,
Good question, RR.
I feel (notice I did not say "know") that our propensity for dualistic categorizations of the objects of experience (or our descriptions of experience) involves the division of the world into ideals. This is reflected in your list of what I would call metaphysical pairs. Reality seems to consist of degrees of the blend of such extremes. This is starkly reflected in the distinction between hot and cold, darkness and light, and naked and clothed. Does "clothed" include a fig leaf or total coverage? To me the world consists of degrees of polar ideals. The latter serve to "measure" the degrees we feel we are experiencing. To me "fault lines" are purely conceptual and persist to the extent that they serve their function of lending subjective order to the world.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 02:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Is there space inside the matter?
Indeed, good q

Quote:
Dale, is gravity "an area", like Iowa ???
I considered "volume," but that didn't quit fit either
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 02:58 pm
@JLNobody,
Mr. Green maybe you should think less and enjoy more
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 06:32 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Funny, I often feel guilty for enjoying myself too much and thinking not enough. For example, there's an interesting thread here about the half-life of "facts". The participants are doing a great amount of creative thinking, and I have not participated mainly out of laziness. What a time to hear from you that I may be thinking too much. Thanks.
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. » The Scope Of All That Is
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/07/2020 at 06:08:39