A Metaphysical Framework Theory

[PeteJ]

(Austin) At the level of Totality there is no change, so it is timeless, and has no existence or not. Notions of single positive metaphysical positions are thus absurd, such as some particular entity forever as in pure materialism, pure Being, pure consciousness, pure any thing, nor pure idealism/platonism, etc.

Do you want to summarize why all of these individually are absurd?

Sure. They're absurd because they're false. That's the usual reason theories are absurd.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks PeteJ for the thread starter,looks well thought out,thought that I would make a comment about "The universe is reasonable" well yes it certainly appears reasonable to me,and it causes me to think about the word reason,where does reason arise from? Well to me it arises within the mind,so if reason arises within the mind and the universe is reasonable,then is it not reasonable to argue that the universe is also a product of mind? Just a thought about reasonableness!

regards michael.

[PeteJ]

Hi Michael.

Yes, that would be my thought also. Physicists often wonder in their writings why the universe accords so well with the 'laws of thought', and this would be a pretty obvious answer.

Unfortunately it would be impossible to demonstrate that the universe obeys these laws, hence the views of Melhuish, Priest, etc survive despite their counterintuitiveness. Nor would there be any way to demonstrate that it doesn't obey them, so the issue must be decided by Occam's razor, or placed into any argument as an axiom, as I do for mine.


.

[mkirkpatrick]

Hi Michael.

Yes, that would be my thought also. Physicists often wonder in their writings why the universe accords so well with the 'laws of thought', and this would be a pretty obvious answer.

Unfortunately it would be impossible to demonstrate that the universe obeys these laws, hence the views of Melhuish, Priest, etc survive despite their counterintuitiveness. Nor would there be any way to demonstrate that it doesn't obey them, so the issue must be decided by Occam's razor, or placed into any argument as an axiom, as I do for mine.


.

You are right peteJ that it would be impossible to demonstrate this idea,however to our own selves be true,so for me it is a reality that is stark plain obvious,my hope is that science will find a way to fully accept this principle and adjust itself accordingly.

regards michael.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I have no intention of responding to your ideas, and I hope nobody else does. This is not what this thread is for. The idea was that people would respond to my ideas. Frankly, I find your ideas woolly and unconvincing, regardless of their correctness or otherwise. It is exactly this sort of waffling on that I like to avoid. It does no good, and is often, as here, massively counter-productive. This is not Hyde Park Corner.

Good-bye, Perej. I was the only responder you had, and much was to the neutral position and your ideas, which is still devoid of responsive discussion. This site is either too empty or abandoned for any discussion to take place. I hereby abandon your thread of no response, no rigor, and just continued insult. You may disregard my correctness all you wish, but i did attend to yours.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Sure. They're absurd because they're false. That's the usual reason theories are absurd.

Look like even you don't want to expand on your own ideas to show what is behind the position. So long; this thread has wasted my time. I now, too, sign off on you, and I should have paid more attention when another did the same, someone whose views I can count on. As for your idea, I still support it, and have talked to it directly and by extension, but you will never hear from me about it again. Your unresponsive style, though, and your manner, leaves much to be desired, and I don't need any more of that in a place that ceases to be a discussion forum by merely making pronouncements and in a flippant manner such as just "because they're false. And I'm glad you have no intention of answering for such since that confirms for no discussion even of what's behind your own idea. A useless approach. Discussion ended; I'm out of here. It's an infertile dust bowl that now has zero discussion.

[austintorn@aol.com]

So, Pete, the philosophy can get more radical, and so we might as well skip to the ultimate radical.

Some might get mired in the notion of eternity as to past and future for Totality (the Absolute) and then derive their way out of it by having that Totality simply ‘is’, rather than ‘is not’, removing time, which is a fine direction, but is not radical enough, for there would be, as well, no distinction between ‘is’ and ‘is not’, for they are the same, as unity. Sound good?

At the level of Totality there is no change, so it is timeless, and has no existence or not. Notions of single positive metaphysical positions are thus absurd, such as some particular entity forever as in pure materialism, pure Being, pure consciousness, pure any thing, nor pure idealism/platonism, etc.

Do you want to summarize why all of these individually are absurd?

Relative to itself, there is something going on internal to Totality. What are your ideas on how and why that might happen?

Forget it, these ponderings on the 'neutral'. Consider the post as not being here. I will make a thread of my own on the subject, as anyone can well see that I like it and support its inquiry. So long. Done.

[PoPpAScience]

Since you have claimed this thread Austin I will respond to your gobble gook.
You said:
"Something forever has no source, for it was never made, so this cannot be"

Can you show me in your metaphysical book of 'Nothing' where it says that, Something forever has to have a source?

You exist in something, why does your belief system say that the substance of this universe had to be made? The only thing humans have discovered being made, are forms by motion. It is quite obvious that you mistake forms with substance.

Your Nothing concept is purely metaphysical and very obsurd. Common sense says that if
all we have ever discovered is something, then something is most likely the starting point
of all forms.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks, Poppa, but I no longer post here; however it will be expanded on and supported in my new thread of a similar nature. Can't say if it will be soon or not, although I do have the information, for I am fed up with the whole TQ place caught between its stated aims and its actual practice, and that causes delays in attending to good discussion, and this is one of those times. It could be that I go off and read books and novels for awhile, for why post in the vacuum of a ghost town?

Basically, what has definition requires a definition point for its definition (like a quark or an electron, and any thing), although I also have solution ideas on Totality, similar to yours, some stated herein, and that is the wonderful connecting aspect between you and I, that could go places, as we have before, but this thread has become a complete no-go for me (your insult didn't help), and I am completely gones-ville from here now and glad of it, too. R.I.P.

Both from nothing and stuff forever can be shown to be absurd, so there goes materialism, as well as no-thing, when taken as pure and single positions.