The Monad Clock

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

I employed the term "monad" in its normal definition, Liebniz included, to mean an independent event, occurrence, or object.

"Monad" has no "normal" definition, it is a philosophically peculiar term; and its definition does not refer to events, but being(s). It was originally used (by Pythagoras) as a term to represent cosmic unity, and later it was employed (by Liebniz) to represent the irreducible integrity of the particles
(monads) that make up reality and their "isolated" yet necessary relationship.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

My attack on psychology was made in hope. The hope was to remove a philosophical misdirection, to remove an ambiguity and popularism that invites no significant philosophical conjecture. I gave reasons. Certainly, there are studies, but no studies fall under the pseudo-domain of psychology, simply because the term has never been carved out in philosophy or medicine. Rather, "psychology" is either a veiled reductionism (mind to matter) or a spurious and contingent moral injunction made in respect of behaviour.

If i read your "reasons" correctly, then you are confusing psychology with psychiatry. Although related, they are very different. They are often combined in practice, but they are still separate disciplines.

Still, neither are without philosophical import, nor can they simply be impugned with the accusation of "reductionism". Both of these practices, as well as the personal and social results thereof, cannot be easily dismissed.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Quote:

Interestingly, it is not merely God that visualizes a subject-object, but science itself.

Berkeley later refined this down to God not depending upon any sense to maintain the archetypes for human perceptions. Instead of our material manifestations, their original sources' existence was supported intellectually by God in much the Greek way (which Berkeley admitted was a manner of be-ing not knowable by him ["This I do not understand...").

It is not clear that these pre-empirical formulas or instructions for phenomena actually constituted any reality whatsoever; or IOW that there was a changing, interactive organization of these intelligible things transpiring within God, which was then transferred and converted to the sense experiences of lesser minds. They could have been brought into co-existence as a "reality" (of flux and extension) for the first time in our perceptions / cognitions.

Kant, however, did not take Berkeley to be verging upon anything like his own empirical realism [quasi-direct realism] -- this world organization of entities in space / time having its intersubjective be-ing for the first time in our outer sense. Kant instead placed Berkeley in his classification of traditional idealists who upheld that sensory content is an illusion and that there was a "truth" that could only be apprehended by reflective thought -- products of reason and argument.

KANT . . . "The dictum of all genuine idealists from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: 'All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only, in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason there is truth.'

"The principle that throughout dominates and determines my Idealism, is on the contrary: 'All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in experience is there truth.'" [Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics]

BERKELEY . . . "But to conceive God to be the sentient Soul, of an animal, is altogether unworthy and absurd. There is no sense, nor sensory, nor any thing like a sense or sensory in God. Sense implies an impression from some other being, and denotes a dependence in the Soul which hath it. Sense is a passion, and passions imply imperfection. God knoweth all things, as pure mind or intellect, but nothing by sense, nor in nor through a sensory. Therefore to suppose a sensory of any kind, whether space or any other in God would be very wrong, and lead us into false conceptions of his nature. The presuming there was such a thing as real absolute uncreated space, seems to have occasioned that modern mistake. But this presumption was, without grounds." [Siris]

BERKELEY . . . "Mark it well; I do not say, I see things by perceiving that which represents them in the intelligible Substance of God. This I do not understand..." [The Three Dialogues]

1 Reply

@fresco,

The ticks of the monad clock were not established as issuing from either transcendentally ideal conditions (identifying conditions, such as "entertainment" identifies a TV from a carpet), OR from transcendentally real conditions (like, a TV identifies itself as a TV).
So the Heideggerian observations are moot. - I have not considered how, or in what manner, ticks are set up, simply that they are given.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

---------------------------------
razzleg wrote

If i read your "reasons" correctly, then you are confusing psychology with psychiatry. Although related, they are very different. They are often combined in practice, but they are still separate disciplines.

Still, neither are without philosophical import, nor can they simply be impugned with the accusation of "reductionism". Both of these practices, as well as the personal and social results thereof, cannot be easily dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------
I'm happy with the way I used the term. An independent item can be termed a monad. The term is especially useful as it describes the idea that all clocks are independent.

Because psychology (and its agent, psychiatry) are reductionisms, reducing human behaviour to material events, it necessarily follows that no advances or judgements have been, or can be, made in human behaviour or experience by this science. This is borne out by the (complete) dearth of advances.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

I don't see how we can have a concept of a "tick" without that of a "hearing observer", and more generally I don't see how we can have any concepts at all, without consensual observers using a common language for common purposes.
Maybe I'm missing something about monadology, but I suggest we have moved on since its appearance which may now have meaning only as a historical curiosity in the development of philosophical thought.

1 Reply

@G H,

Berkeley later refined this down to God not depending upon any sense to maintain the archetypes for human perceptions. Instead of our material manifestations, their original sources' existence was supported intellectually by God in much the Greek way (which Berkeley admitted was a manner of be-ing not knowable by him ["This I do not understand...").

It is not clear that these pre-empirical formulas or instructions for phenomena actually constituted any reality whatsoever; or IOW that there was a changing, interactive organization of these intelligible things transpiring within God, which was then transferred and converted to the sense experiences of lesser minds. They could have been brought into co-existence as a "reality" (of flux and extension) for the first time in our perceptions / cognitions.

Kant, however, did not take Berkeley to be verging upon anything like his own empirical realism [quasi-direct realism] -- this world organization of entities in space / time having its intersubjective be-ing for the first time in our outer sense. Kant instead placed Berkeley in his classification of traditional idealists who upheld that sensory content is an illusion and that there was a "truth" that could only be apprehended by reflective thought -- products of reason and argument.

KANT . . . "The dictum of all genuine idealists from t
-----------------------------------------------------

Kant says that things require conditions for their identification, Berkely and Science that they do not.

So Berkeley and Science promote the idea that objects identify themselves, more or less accurately, no matter how they were created. Kant would say that because objects are set up by human conditions, like intuition, there is no room for such scientific or Berkelyan skepticism or inaccuracies.

Kant and Wittgenstein are the two foremost transcendentally ideal philosophers, but even they were unable to tackle this topic without problems.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote I don't see how we can have a concept of a "tick" without that of a "hearing observer", and more generally I don't see how we can have any concepts at all, without consensual observers using a common language for common purposes.
Maybe I'm missing something about monadology, but I suggest we have moved on since its appearance which may now have meaning only as a historical curiosity in the development of philosophical thought.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I am saying that ticks are given. I am not saying how or why, which is another topic. Monad is a good term as by its curious form suggests a novel outlook. In this case, it is the novel outlook that clock events are not related, but independent. It is novel because it is a new persepcetive, one not taken up previously or by science.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Well...whenever one of my interlocutors on this forum provides a response that i haven't expected (yes, i have an enormous ego and expect to be able to anticipate responses), i feel compelled to re-read the entire thread of our conversation to figure out where i went wrong. And I have been wrong, in the course of this discourse, not because we do not disagree, but because I misunderstood where our disagreement lies.

The majority of my disagreement lies with J.M.E. McTaggart, and his philosophical priorities. For example his stipulation that "time" describes an "ideal" set of conditions for our experience.

I do not think of "time" as an ideal circumstance, any more than i think that "time" is by definition non-contradictory. Time is, as i have previously said, a complicated medium: available to contradictory views of the past, present , and future, and relationships between each that status that dwarf each "view" in their complexity. Just as human practicalities are dwarfed by their "ideals", so are our "ideals" dwarfed by potential.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

---------------------------------
razzleg wrote

If i read your "reasons" correctly, then you are confusing psychology with psychiatry. Although related, they are very different. They are often combined in practice, but they are still separate disciplines.

Still, neither are without philosophical import, nor can they simply be impugned with the accusation of "reductionism". Both of these practices, as well as the personal and social results thereof, cannot be easily dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------
I'm happy with the way I used the term. An independent item can be termed a monad. The term is especially useful as it describes the idea that all clocks are independent.

I think that there was a quotational miss there, but it's no big deal. The question is: all physical/metaphysical clocks are independent of what? And is that slash above independent or defining?

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Because psychology (and its agent, psychiatry) are reductionisms, reducing human behaviour to material events, it necessarily follows that no advances or judgements have been, or can be, made in human behaviour or experience by this science. This is borne out by the (complete) dearth of advances.

I think that you misunderstand the contemporary relationship between psychology and psychiatry, and you underestimate the relationship between each to develop revolutionary mentalforms. Therapy is not about conformity...its about finding oneself. Psychology, in deference to technological advances, can only advance by increments and belief.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

fresco wrote:
I don't see how we can have a concept of a "tick" without that of a "hearing observer", and more generally, I don't see how we can have any concepts at all, without consensual observers using a common language for common purposes.
Maybe I'm missing something about "monadology", but I suggest we have moved on since its appearance, which may now have meaning only as a historical curiosity in the development of philosophical thought.

Again, I am saying that ticks are given. I am not saying how or why, which is another topic. Monad is a good term as by its curious form suggests a novel outlook. In this case, it is the novel outlook that clock events are not related, but independent. It is novel because it is a new persepcetive, one not taken up previously or by science.

That's not quite right...given ticks and independent events are common conjectures in theology. Both are called "miraculous"...

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

It seems to me that the idealism of Berkeley, as with the perspectivism of Nietzsche, suggests that all empirically grounded knowledge is necessarily partial. Yet unlike Nietzsche (who did not, to his credit, require the presupposition of an absolute/objective reality) Berkeley required the assumption of perspective-free realities and as such an omniscient perceiver or God.

i never expected that my introduction of the name of Berkeley into this debate would yield these sort of results. The comparison between Berkeley and Nietzsche is a superficial and misleading equivalence. It wasn't Nietzsche, but Berkeley that introduced the idea of divine "objectivity".

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

JLNobody wrote:

Yes. The subject-object tradition is central to those who would visualize a separate deity to oversee its creation.
There is a good analysis of that tradition and its subsequent abandonment by existentialists here:

Interestingly, it is not merely God that visualizes a subject-object, but science itself.

Actually, there is a difference. Science regards the relationship as one between observer and observed... a presumed deity would be between creator and created.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

...the term "logic" generally refers to the way that objects behave...

not even a little bit...at best it evaluates the behavior of certain "reliable" objects

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

The comment on Berkeley was made by someone else. As there is no way to cut, attribute, and paste what other people write without a great deal of effort (there is no quote option) I'm afraid that mistakes of poster attribution will be made.

The subject and object distinction is taken up by religion and science. Both adhere to a form of creation of subjects and objects, but that is another matter. Generally, religious folk and scientists are both animists of some sort.

Logic is a set of rules that describe the behaviour of objects. There aren't any other definitions around, unless we equivocate and also call logic the ability to make emotionally independent, though sociallyacceptable decisions (like Dr Spock).

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

There is no quote option on this site, so I have to laboriously, and badly cut and paste. I think you are sometimes reading someone else's comments in the replies I gave. I will not include the comments I am replying to in future as too many mistakes are made in cutting and pasting.

By "independent" I mean incorrigible, having no relationships.

I reject the idea of a "psychological context for finding oneself". Psychology is selective mind/matter reductionism of a judeo-christian morality, the rest is human affairs and relationships.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Quote:

There is no quote option on this site, so I have to laboriously, and badly cut and paste. I think you are sometimes reading someone else's comments in the replies I gave. I will not include the comments I am replying to in future as too many mistakes are made in cutting and pasting.

Manually inserted forum code like (quote)Paste it here(/quote) will work, though. While this adds slightly to the "laboriousness", it nevertheless clears up any confusion for others. Replace the parentheses with brackets [ ] to make it work, of course.

1 Reply

@G H,

some people can quote and include the author, but such techniques aren't shown or explained in this site. That, and the like of a tree view, make interaction on this site very awkward.

2 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

You need to enable the BBCode Editor located above the reply box.

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

some people can quote and include the author, but such techniques aren't shown or explained in this site. That, and the like of a tree view, make interaction on this site very awkward.

Click the "My Preferences" at the bottom of the page, and change its Show quote button setting from "No" to "Yes". After doing that your original problem will be remedied, as well as also making visible the Editor link that Fresco referred to. Apparently the bloody Quote button is off by default these days, rendering it completely hidden to those who couldn't care less about ever visiting the account settings (after they are registered).

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Anyway, what I want to say, is, can someone tell me what I am on about because at this point I have no idea.

0 Replies

The Monad Clock

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know