[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl wonderful post socratus! why would you want to break the circuit of abstraction? Maybe truth can be found there and extrapolated? I think you are right, however, the journey must remember the end and anticipate the beginning...

Abstraction is what has taken philosophy to posmodernism (the end of abstractive philosophy). I have a theory about this, it's a bit complex. Kant was the resolution, the final point, the one that ended the discussion amongst philosophers during the 18th century. These were devided between rationalists (mostly French (Descartes leader), Italien (Spinoza leader), or German (Leibniz leader)) and the empiricists (British, who followed Berkeley, Locke, Hobbes and Hume).Then came Kant, who resolve dthe discussion by abstracting all conceptualization, defending that abstract would lead to the laws. It did, and there was idealism. Well, we can see a parallelism. 18th century-20th century. Because during the last century, the discussion between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy was in many ways parallel to the discussion amongst rationalists and empricists in the 18th cnetury. Well, the basis for the two points is basically this:
1. Hermeneutical Phenomenology, believe in a truth, A logic, a nature. Discuss about the methods and limitations of science and philosophy. Analytic philosophy.
2. Hermeneutical Existentialism, relativism and subjectivism (even nihilism), many truths, logic and rationality not usefull (or any argumentation). Discuss about the individual and the society, psicoanalysis and anthropology. Continental philiosophy.

Basically, I believe that we need another universalization tio solve this problem. Kant developed Abstractive Universalization (Abun). Well, I am developing something I call Analogous Universalization (Anun). Instead of conceptualizing by abstraction, it should and must be by analogy. This is a very complex idea, so I will give an example. Imagine you are a culturologist (if this profession exists at all) and you have encountered an entirelly new civilization. What methods should you use to understand it, deconstruct it? You might think of Kant's abstraction. Let's see an idea, an event, or anything n this new culture, abstract it so that it ends up under the same abstract concept as something from our culture. Then you can draw the law. Or you can remember Guille's post, and use analogy. See the evolution in their art, for example, and then the on in ours. Observe them and see the analogy. That is all you need, there ar eno rules no systematic programmed methodology of actions. Just analogy. It is better, because you can get rid of abstraction, you talk directly through the things themselves, just that you have still the same advantage that you got from abstraction, that you can make the laws.

What does everyone think?

[harmonygirl]

Guille, aren't you formalizing what we do already? Understanding new things is achievable by relating to something we know, until we come to know the new thing by itself...or have I misunderstood?

[Guille]

Anun and Abun are nouns, but they can be used as verbs (in English many nouns are converted to verbs, a recent example is 'e-mail').

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Guille, aren't you formalizing what we do already? Understanding new things is achievable by relating to something we know, until we come to know the new thing by itself...or have I misunderstood?

Yes, it's sort of formalization. I did say that I'm not giving rules or anything, though, so it's not that much formalizing, it's more a generalization and eye opening to the possibilities of anun. Also I wanted to show the difference between abstraction and analogy, and as I said, analogy has the good from abstraction but not the bad. Now, you say we use it always... I doubt it, we live in a very Kantian world. Abstraction is easier to do, cause we can make the laws directly from parts of one same thing, whiles analogy is from different things. Now, when we see a real-world discussion, like abortion, death penalty, politics, war... They all rise and rise until they ahcieve pure abstraction. It may not seem like that, but every time peopel discuss things (we can see this specially in these forums) the point of difference is the abun that each has done, each's abstraction is different. But if analogy was what is different, there would be no problem (I mean, there would be discussion, but it would necessarily (it's a natural law of analogy) conclude).

[harmonygirl]

Guille, I am not sure we live in a Kantian world. There are many people (I'd say the majority) who don't think in abstract terms. Unfortunately, I think the kind of thinking in these forums is rare...would the US have invaded, plundered and occupied Iraq if logical, rational thinking prevailed?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Guille, I am not sure we live in a Kantian world. There are many people (I'd say the majority) who don't think in abstract terms. Unfortunately, I think the kind of thinking in these forums is rare...would the US have invaded, plundered and occupied Iraq if logical, rational thinking prevailed?

Abstraction doesn't requier rationality. Kant is the end of rationalism, in fact. And also of empiricism. That is the question: Kant is in ourworld because he could manage the problem between relying on concepts or percepts. Now we need analogy. About the war, when we listen two politicians discussing about the war, they are not disagreeing because they have different points of view, or because they are using a different analysis. They disagree because they have tackled individually the subject in an abstract thought, that is what our minds do because of what we are tought in school and society in our youth. I can tell cause I can see this in my everyday life. Both of the politicians have abstracted in a different way, ending up with a different law, and thus a different idea completelly about what the war is. If both had used anun, this problem wouldn't exist. Also, I know what one thinks, that Bush didn't think about any of this abstraction thing when he invaded, he just though tin the petrol and money, well yes, of course, but the thing is that to see the logic "invade irak-->petrol gained-->$$$" his mind (or of those who told him that) made an abstraction.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Abstraction is what has taken philosophy to posmodernism (the end of abstractive philosophy). I have a theory about this, it's a bit complex. Kant was the resolution, the final point, the one that ended the discussion amongst philosophers during the 18th century. These were devided between rationalists (mostly French (Descartes leader), Italien (Spinoza leader), or German (Leibniz leader)) and the empiricists (British, who followed Berkeley, Locke, Hobbes and Hume).Then came Kant, who resolve dthe discussion by abstracting all conceptualization, defending that abstract would lead to the laws. It did, and there was idealism. Well, we can see a parallelism. 18th century-20th century. Because during the last century, the discussion between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy was in many ways parallel to the discussion amongst rationalists and empricists in the 18th cnetury. Well, the basis for the two points is basically this: 1. Hermeneutical Phenomenology, believe in a truth, A logic, a nature. Discuss about the methods and limitations of science and philosophy. Analytic philosophy. 2. Hermeneutical Existentialism, relativism and subjectivism (even nihilism), many truths, logic and rationality not usefull (or any argumentation). Discuss about the individual and the society, psicoanalysis and anthropology. Continental philiosophy. Basically, I believe that we need another universalization tio solve this problem. Kant developed Abstractive Universalization (Abun). Well, I am developing something I call Analogous Universalization (Anun). Instead of conceptualizing by abstraction, it should and must be by analogy. This is a very complex idea, so I will give an example. Imagine you are a culturologist (if this profession exists at all) and you have encountered an entirelly new civilization. What methods should you use to understand it, deconstruct it? You might think of Kant's abstraction. Let's see an idea, an event, or anything n this new culture, abstract it so that it ends up under the same abstract concept as something from our culture. Then you can draw the law. Or you can remember Guille's post, and use analogy. See the evolution in their art, for example, and then the on in ours. Observe them and see the analogy. That is all you need, there ar eno rules no systematic programmed methodology of actions. Just analogy. It is better, because you can get rid of abstraction, you talk directly through the things themselves, just that you have still the same advantage that you got from abstraction, that you can make the laws. What does everyone think?

Guille, you have made an excellent discovery about the problems involved in communications between different parties. I have been working in the same area and have called your analogy process, conceptual intentionality. It's basically the identical process, i.e., comparative analyses of same ideas in different people, places and things. In other words, we can discover true human values, and even an extended mathematics of, by such as inter-nation comparative analyses, in connection with the scientific axiology of notable professor Robert Hartman. Here's a post on another forum about the subject and a link to Hartman's ideas: >>Thanks for the insights. I think the area of most importance is to try and join science and religion, logic and intuition. Even though I may lean more toward science and you toward intuition, I think the far more important area is the union of the two. This must be accomplished to start to solve the Mid-East/West problem of severe religeous conflict, if the planet is to survive. As a final statement I'd like to add a response to another poster at space and motion. Here it is: This was in response to Knotty's post at: http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...opic.php?t=411

Hi Knotty Nuf-Rumi, I enjoyed your post on Jung and its possible further connections and extensions to and of WSM. As far as I am concerned you are headed in the right direction, as I am also headed in this same direction of connecting Jungian Unconscious more to metaphysics, infinity and WSM. Just as a quick addition at this moment, more at a later date, I am looking at the entire connections between your thoughts, Geoff's and Jung's as the super-consciousness[the totality of finite and infinite facts and opinions of all minds - the abyss?] being the unconscious infinite space inter-connectedness of all these ideas. As a matter of fact I have recently been introduced to a philosophy professor of scientific axiology that may be of help to you also, as it is to my own work. I'm only in the early stages of putting my ideas all together with these many new connections and my older work, but see unbelievable possibilities of creating an entirely new mataphysics, as does the professional process philosopher who introduced me to Dr. Robert Hartman's work. I think it would be worth your time to check it out at: http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/html/MeasurementOfValue.htm

It's about using mathematics of infinity[formal second order math and logic] to prove the conceptual intentionality of infinite, intrinsic human values. It has been scientifically used since its creation in the seventies. It is sound sience, and can be interpreted beyond its present use with the addition of other fields of study, such as economics equilibrium theories, and physics'/economics' ergodicity theories, as my philosopher friend and I are now working on. It will be some time before I can comment further, but I already know it is very promising. I know it is one of the missing links between the joining of metaphysics and physics, i.e., Jung, infinite superconsciousness and WSM, also the finite and infinite worlds of other thought areas, as you mentioned, i.e., little and big. I have already realized Hartman's transfinite math corresponds easily with greater and lesser magnitudes, greatest and least magnitudes, which makes explanations much simpler. See what you think.>>

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
BTW, excellent post. I would quibble a little, but overall, almost perfect. And also, what do you think of Hafez, Rumi's latter being?>>

Guille, my above ideas directly correspond with your analogy use ideas. I believe we are truly onto something. Maybe the solution to philosophy's central problem, the battle between the two major schools. Let me know more about what you think after checking out Hartman. I love your term Analogous Universalization. Anun.

regards

[WithoutMe]

The end, if there exists one, of abstraction will be a state of no formalizing, no concocting, no theorizing, no idealising, no notionizing, in short, nothing to do with "all that we posit" as this &/or that!!!

Talking about something, that is verbalizing, say about the shape of my finger is a holographic reality where my finger exists, but the finger which really is the finger, is a finger which is not just of my words or the various ideas & descriptions that I may use to elucidate its existence... My finger which is just my finger & the not the word of the finger is a finger which is just it!!!

But even as I am trying to make a point (which, seriouslly I donot think I am any good at), I am using verbalization, hence, moving away from "what is" to "what is to me"... can a thing be known in absolute Isolation? -- Isolation even of the Observer!!!

If not, then we should just move on with whatever form of abstraction we have... i mean, if so, we would be able to question the validity of a particular abstraction, but can we ever then question the very concept of abstraction? Coz being able to question, is infact layered with so many abstractions, of which these words are some!!!

Question the Question or Question the Answer to a Question?

Now, one may quote some Philosophers (mainly mystical ones) who have talked about Observation without the Observer, but even then, the person who is quoting, is she devoid of herself?

Do we here, when going to the very basis of human consciousness halt back at a paradox, or are we in dire need of a fundamental leap, - if not in thoughts or ideas, then in what?? Precisely, what ??

Can one answer a question without the dependence on the question? Can there be an answer without a question?

However, are all questions then answered by a bigger question, one that momentarily (if not only temporarily) hides out the previous question?

If a question is to be truly answered, that is answered not by a bigger question but answered by an answer which is itself not a question, then such an answer would raise no more questions & as all things are connected in this existence, such an absolute answering would lead no more questions EVER....

So, I sincerely ask here -- is an answer ever truly answered?

More so, what exactly is a question?

Rgds,
wM.

PS. Isolation of the Observer or Isolation from the Observer?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe The end, if there exists one, of abstraction will be a state of no formalizing, no concocting, no theorizing, no idealising, no notionizing, in short, nothing to do with "all that we posit" as this &/or that!!! So, I sincerely ask here -- is an answer ever truly answered?

WM, I think you need Ocham's Razor in a bad way. Reduce all this word spray to simple direct perceptive cognition, and forget the rest, period... Abstraction is not needed, all the time, it's just an extra tool in the mind's cabinet of many tools, but they are simply tools to assist cognition. The big "I" is direct cognition. "I" see you. "I" see me. I see "I." "I" also sees I.

regards

[WithoutMe]

Lloyd,
Just curious.... what r yur views on Poetry?

Do u think that Poets have any real place in the development of TOE??

Rgds,
wM.

What happens if u put a Poetry thru Occam's Razor??

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe Lloyd, Just curious.... what r yur views on Poetry? Do u think that Poets have any real place in the development of TOE?? Rgds, wM. What happens if u put a Poetry thru Occam's Razor??

WM, I have seen many poets with the ability to condense science to a more meaningful explanation of the facts, and I welcome it. Hafez is one I have mentioned elsewhere. Jack London and Robert Service were also favorites of mine. America's own Ralph Waldo Emerson is one of my favorite poetic transcendental philosophers, as is F.W.Nietzsche. I think all long-windedness should be reduced to poetic truth... I further think it is possible...

regards

p.s.
How can you beat people like Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison? I love em dearly...

"I believe in something greater than myself. I just don't trust it to be good." unknown