My effort was to see if I could point the way out of that for you. But if you are over impressed with the notion that no one can ever be 100% certain (much like Bigus and so very many others), then there isn’t really anything that anyone could say that would help you out of that. And the only other option is what they have been calling “Faith”. You just have to choose in what to have faith other than the “immutable fact” that you can never be certain that you chose well.
Well, yes, but my allusion also to the fix some of us seemed to be steeped in, that the minority, the 5% is controlling the other 95. This seems to be the reality, as some see it, i feel if that is denied in the context of what we were talking about, then, that view will become fuzzy, and worse, a farce. Is there any certainty in that view, is at at all related to ontology?
I’m afraid that you lost me (again) with that one. Could you be more specific perhaps and be a little more careful of the exact wording?
_______________________________________---------___________________________________________----
James, i was jumping the gun, where perhaps we were far from the middle, that grey area, where from we can at least draw intellitent guesses.(approximating them) The 95-5; in another case, backed up by scientific hypotesis of 91-1, and even in my overstatement ((perhaps)) of 99.9999999-0.1111111, the numbe keeps popping up. It is time to get to at least to the periphery of the ontology, since that is Your starting point. You pointed up my weakness to use the indeterminate as a starting point, and the problem of validting that at least on a hypothetical basis. I will jump in with relevance, i guess the ultimately relevant question now, which is probably, or can be, an anchoring point not only to this discussion and how it may relate to other then an ontologically partitioned discussion; (and after all it is not just You and me, James and Obi, that is of potential relevance even to a significant ontology, but other, who read this post.
There is the central issue of the now assumed correct spead of 95-5 percent of the population (US) who think that the upper echelons control the lesser. The upper layer of society consists of the makers and breakers. The rest of us, follow suit, unwillingly perhaps, but of necessity, if we are to survive, by having our daily bread.
In the beginning we tried to derive something of the problem of what the content of the mind consists of. I took a draw, whether we can evaluate the content by differentiating those words=ideas, which may or may not be relevant. Even a part of the mind can draw some relevance here, You said.
Now, to show, that we can progress to the more relevant parts, we need not contain it within the aspect of th forum dealing with logic and language.
We can extend from denoting aspects which are absolutely and logically contained in a Hermenautism of , the body of desire, toward a progressive, unfeering analysis, beyond strictly as Freud would have it, an analysis of sub conscious symbolism.
The failure of Levin’s topology, and Freud’s economy of the id, to show corresponding vectors, is rooted in this forced attempt at a conventional wisdom, which is absolutely sure of it’s ground.
The new world order is contested on basis of he 95-5 split, the chance of a machine take over, an 80-20 split, others including myself, holding to an even greater split , establishes a credible doubt, within the very logical foundations of mathematics it's self.
Now if You are an idealist,which i profess to be the one and the same, critical doubt is necessary to overcome the minutest doubt, even in cases where that doubt is overwhelmingly miniscule.
Evolutionary changes happen , on account of the minute variable mutation, which changes everything.
So this is why i introduce political psychology of the masses upon the personal psychology of the individual, as progress toward a diminished applicability. Freud ran out of steam, but the fabric and architecture of it need not sink into irrelevance, just because the only attempts which worked here-to-fore, were mystical attmepts by such as Jung.
The center may not be so mysterious as to defy
analysis, therfore, how to start, if not by a proximal approximation of what is going down in the dynamics, of each individual soul, without necessitating a cop out of mystical union as the basis?
I think numbers, approximations can validate rather than invalidate certainty, since analysing what is goingon, can, in essence change the very thing we are looking at, or would like to. Therefore, to validate an ideal logical certainty- may be necessary not as an inherent pre existing rule or artifact, but a pragmatic pre definitional certainty as a hypothtical starting point? The point is that that point has vanished. The absolutely small becomes unsightly beyond a certain limit. Desriptions fail here,but the need to hold them a necessary component of the architecture of ontology.
James, Nietzhe didn't cause the twilight of the gods, he only recognized the observance, that it it humanity, which ceased to find them useful. I think they erred, and they looked at things very much short term. This oversight, missed the fact, that the thought of God, as an irresolute and necessary idea, is costing dearly.
So in my mind there is no question, that the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions is purely a short sighted and pre-emtory distinction, anticipating and preparing for the crisis which betakes our humanism, all for the sake of the immediate gratification of nihilizing Faust's pickle, our own sense of undoing. Are we redeemed? Can we be saved by the apprehension of the highest causes, as they, within their natural unfolding, overcoming this lack, a lack getting worse by the minute, can save us even this minute, by holding this pointless point as the very basis of our existence? A certain knowlege of the almost laughable singular analysis of lostness? where the point, the point whereuon the triangle rests, is iron clad?
This is why i absolutely agree with You, but such agreement rests on the similar point of the untrustworthy, the hidden variable(s), where trust=faith seems to be dissolving. The problem is not within, it is without, without this faith of overcomingand filling in, (as though we did it ourselves)creates the illusion of despair. On the long run, the minority cannot overcome the majority, and it will take maybe nother 2,000 years to realize this, since with control comes it’s nemesis, : the immaturity which a delayed development can cause. What is 2,000 years in the big scheme of things? Not really much, let’s face it.
I can agree with much of that (that I can follow), but it still compels me to try to get to a simple starting point before worrying about all of those other issues, many of which disappear once a good grounding is established.
So let me ask you this;
If something is truly, absolutely impossible (not merely thought to be), can we be 100% certain that it will never happen?
NO! It would lean existential impossibility on an ontological impossibility, the point which has vanished. That point is totally immutible, beyond desription.That is not to say such distinction really exists, only that it is beyond conventional wisdom.
I’m confused with that response. Are you saying “NO! We cannot be 100% certain that a truly impossible thing cannot happen”?
And are you now saying that a “totally immutable principle” cannot ever be violated? Is that 100% certain?
Yes, this appearent paradox is what gets fuzzy.
On one hand impossibility of non existent phenomena
may on the level beneath appearances, have absolute certainty, and this is where i disagreed for the sake of agreement.
The point was made earlier that an integration
can not be had a-priori without structural
differentiation.
This is why, (and in the course of my life, i had
the opportunity)of asking this very question of Timothy Leary, and the tie in came in reference to the very nasty trips people were ending up with. Young ones, and again referring to Your topic of
sexual identity variation, are not yet integrated,
especially boys, whose chronological age do not correspond to ther level of maturity,-; were trying to take shortcuts to the other side, as the Doors’
Morrison song based on the book, 'The Doors of Perception, ----without having a key to that door. The logical certainty is presumed, and the security it falsely offered./offers. In this hallucinegic/virtual world of abundant and seemingly unending
possibilities, the immature mind cannot let go. There is no bridge, to casually walk across, there is only the crash, some very severe, that everything is not
as it should be on the level of absolute certainty, as
defined (to them) by their peers, etc.
That there is this bedrock of what ‘they’ call the
culture, the counter culture tried to nihilize, not realizing, that the counter included a calculus of assimilation on the way up. They tried to drop (out) everything, without retaining this bridge. They
burned it behind them, and in many cases, the only
pad remaining them was institutionalization or self immolation.
The paradoxy consists of the overlap of both, but
under conditions which vary the overlap to an almost
total disengagement,or, to an absolute coincidence. Where the coincidental nature of the similarity reached.; it’s an all inclusive limit, the near ideal
becoming appearent, 'if only they could just have
held on to the night. The day lay bare all illusion, and romance.
If they could have but equivicated the day with the
night,(I think there is a Godard picture put out about
the same time) the dreams would not have been cut short. But in Kant’s formulation, there may have been permanence in these fragile notions, had the
immature ones, waited for some cement to dry on
the construction. The Weight (a 'The Band song) was really too heavy,(A Jefferson Airplane vehicle-You are my Brother, You ain’t Heavy)
I brought in these allusions, to illustrate the near
possible/impossible connection, in anwer to Your
paradoxical quiery on an appaerent paradox. I feel this more then when thinking of it, and in a sense it extends to the difference between a thought, and a
thought of a thought. Between an object, and an
idea. This difference is a delicate balancing act, as teeter tottering, as constant adjustments are made according to the weight of the objects, and their
distance from the fulcrum. The heavy weights have
to be far closer to the middle, to compensate the light ones on the other side. Other wise, the light ones will be lifted from heights, from which they will
not be able to come down. It seems an enviable
position, but i would prefer the depth.
The possibility impossibility paradox is solved in the grey area where the certainty and the contingency are re=mixed. How, You previously asked in a similar context, becomdes a non sequitor, or even the why. It ill not be based on other infinite regressions, since it will define the very terms used.
The coincidence was almost synchronious in its paranormal sense.
Timothy Leary, huh. That explains a lot.
So if something that is totally impossible can happen anyway, why do you call it “totally impossible”?
For the same reason, well a similar reason Nietzche agued that God was dead. Now the next step in validating this aphorism by people following him was an accusation that it was he, N, who actually killed God. Not Jesus, but belief in God? This is not what went down. It was humanity who killed God, but they would have taken it as a gross affront, totally unacceptable, and needless to say a misunderstanding of the highest magnitude. No wonder that type of irreconciable point of view can make one angry, or mad, depending on whether an introvert or extravert. Nietzche was an introvert , Hitler, the opposite.
I can’t see how that answers the question.
You are calling something one thing, but then claiming it is another thing, its opposite.
It seems that you would merely be lying.
So why are you calling it the opposite of what you are claiming it to be?
Calling something one thing and claiming it to be another is the very reason for why differences between the two were found then, differentiated in the first place. One miscalculation, though, alikeness
seemed to progressively gain conceptual substance,
whereupon it became obvious, that the gain became unreasonably misleading, and frankly false. It was through revision, that loss became the preoccupation
of reason. Instead of the identity serving the cause
of reason, it became the taking the anomalie of identity apart and finding reasons for doing so. This became the basis for deconstructing these reasons,
because they turned out to be shallow, if not totally
hollow. James , isn’t it terribly coincidental, that we are back to the original logical justification? Your last critique had left me no other options. And it really
shows the repetition, (Kierkegaard), and it’s
application-Delueze. I am trying to disengage but can not, because it is in the process. The Nietzche recurrence was the premordial repetition, the eternal
return. This is no lie, it is just the way minds work.
Well, it is repeating because I want to make it clear.
Do you understand the difference between calling something by a name and it actually being what you call it? If you think that there is a cat in your basement and tell someone that a cat is in your basement, but later discover that it was a dog, do you believe that it changed from a cat to a dog? It seems that is what you are saying.
And with anything else, does it become whatever you call it, just because that’s what you thought it was? Is a square really a circle merely because in the dark, you thought it was a circle?
I am reading some of Your blogs, and in one of them You mentioned, the requirement for more subtely, than using man’s best friend as set up examples.
But seriously if i called a dog a cat, knowingly, i would be open to the charge of deception for some kind of gain. Being open parapsychologically i can not honestly say, that Your inferences are not totally altruistic. In fact i am kind of a loner type of guy, and hardly one to engage in convesations as exhausting, in the sense of covering all aspects. I appreciate that, but honestly, whom am i fooling, right? Would i honestly think myself cpable of that obvious an attempt to become so very disingenious? ON PURPOSE? ALL I AM IMPLYING IS THAT THE ‘SYSTEM’ makes us into characters we often don’t even recognise, and the gross philosophycal twsit and turns may mean a lot more than empty words, they do construct, destroy lives en masse. If a very well respected researcher would comeout tomorrow and claim that the cat displayed in his hand is nothing but a totally genetically transformed dog, who would disbelieve him? This is what i mean, that the impossible of the today is the very possible for tomorrow.
I am not talking about what might be impossible today only. I said, “totally impossible”, meaning that it can’t happen ever, such as constructing a square circle. You might be able to construct something that you call a “square-circle”, but an actual square-circle is an oxymoron and can never exist.
The definitonal impossibility may be totally arbitrary and adopted by convention. We can call, a square a square because that is what we have always called it. It is possible to call possible impossible. I can say, that a circle is the figure of a four sided object with
the
number of sides are approaching infinite. If that figure can be defined as such and such, and is defind as
such and such, then there is no room to wiggle, exept through re-defining it.
it differently. If the numver of sides increases on a
square it becomes a polygon and so on.
The point is adefinitional constant is replaced by a functionally variable function.
James, i typed this late in the night, and was very tired, so excuse the format and the computer errors.
Two contradictory definitions are obciously excluded
from a set , where oxymorons are totally reductive in the first place. Definitionally opposites can never made to be equivalent, because that’s the way they are defined, to be distinct. But functionally a figure
with four sides,- as the number of sides increase
toward infinite can approximate a circle. Here the square can approximate a circle if, ----…
If we define a proposition as all sets, where
everything is impossible, naturally that definition
holds, until we change that. An all inclusive definition s of everythingm can still have other everything above and below it, like a turtle upon a turtle upon a
turtle.
I see Your point, however.
So to you truth is arbitrary and acceptably incoherent.
An incoherent understanding creates weakness, insecurity, an impotence. Being made of the same substance, it destroys the mind merely more slowly than fear. It creates a population of incapacitated slaves, eventually replaced.
That’s exactly right, it is what it is, it functions to the best attainable/attained model of possibility. It doesen’t mean that it is a necessary condition, though.
It is not totally incoherent, though, only to the
degree it can not adhere to it’s own sense of coherency.
At a critical juncture, within the mix of under and over standing , a light inadvertantly shines in, and it is a source of renewal. It is a force to be reckoned with. It is never seen, with exception, understood, more felt.
It could clear the slate if it would be unimpeded.
At this point, if left to it’s own devices, the contingency would give way to the necessary. It would totally overlap any other chance or possibility.
It would appear as the necessary truth, of total credibility. The chancees for this may be slight, perhaps 5% if that, i would hazard more like .01, or a lot, lot less, maybe as it’s said, costing millions of lives. But;perhaps we (i) -drifting, far, afield.
Actualy , if the literal interpretation to be understood,
millions of lifetimes are not really that daunting, after all the sleep which surrounds us, is far vastr then the time it takes to wake up. One glance, in one lifetime, any glance includes all, at that moment, and that moment subsumes all time, but that one brief glance, and that isall we have at times.
The rest is tedious, and lengthy, but so worthwhile to set the stage, without which that glance would not be possible? Dauntng, because once realized, it may/could immobilize structure, making it deficient,
this is why the quantum moment for most would and should remain in the fictions of science, and God, put the three of knowledge not into the middle of the garden for no purpose, to make allusios that it is a seminal idea, an orgasmic outpouring of the kindness of creation.
Whereupon of course Eve was sure to take the bait, She herself is the only naive and deceitful being, who can pull this illusion off, and to her, it’s worth the pain, and can cast this unto everyone with her dance.
We are living all of us, witness to the magic of Salome’s dance , Lou should have known it, probably did.