"First Metaphysics" by Dennis Kane

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

"First Metaphysics" by Dennis Kane

Postby dkane75 » Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:22 pm

The "equation" given here --->

Image

reads: Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference. This is more of a profound philosophical statement than anything else. The way that I came up with this equation is perhaps more interesting than the explanation of the equation itself.

It was the Spring of '04 when I just finished reading the book Being and Time by the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. This is widely regarded as being one of the most difficult philosophical works to get through. When I finished the book, I was inspired to leave Tampa and head to California, where I proceeded to spend the next three weeks, in a completely homeless state, wandering the coast from San Diego to San Francisco. I spent the first nine of those days writing an "existential diary," which contained the seeds of the philosophical system that I proceeded to develop. The original diary can be found on this website: geocities.com/spiral2theend.

I describe my philosophical system as "First Metaphysics," in the sense of Descartes' Meditations and Kant's Critiques. Getting down to brass tacks, then, my system begins with the primordial I-world unity. This unity has the character of spirituality. The I-world unity is given by the transcendent mode of Time-Identity.

This mode is given the name of Time-Identity because the phrases "There is time" and "I am" mean the same exact thing. The transcendent mode of Time-Identity can also be thought of as the experience of experiencing itself. It is also understood as the Zen meditative state. In this mode, there is precisely no difference between 'I' and 'world.'

It is vital here to realize that the archetypal concepts of time and identity are self-referring. Time means identity (the 'I'): nothing more and nothing less. Likewise, identity means time: nothing more and nothing less. Putting anything else into these definitions will only lead us astray.

Given these considerations, time is nothing other than the infinite fullness that is the self. Time, in the strictest sense, is simply the absolute fullness that is given by pure experience. It is from this starting point -- the I-world unity that is given by the mode of Time-Identity -- that all else derives.

For no knowable reason, then, the I-world unity annihilates into 'I' and 'world.' It is senseless to ask why this annihilation occurs. This annihilation is perhaps best understood as biological necessity, e.g. hunger and sexual desire. To ask why this annihilation occurs is the same as asking why life exists. It is simply unknowable.

Annihilated, the I and world stand opposite one another. As an opposition, the world is thrown into question for the I. In this way, the world is held as an indeterminacy, or an infinity. As an indeterminate opposition, the world is said to appear to the I. The world, once primordially united with the I, is now a mere appearance for the I.

As the I awaits the resolution of the indeterminate opposition of appearance of the world, the concept of space is given. Without this period of awaiting, space can not be said to exist. Whereas we have understood time as being the absolute fullness that is given by pure experience, we can now understand space as being the absolute emptiness that is given by mere appearance.

Annihilated, the mode of Time-Identity degenerates into "many times with different identities." There is now 'space' between these different times. This degenerate mode is known as the mode of Space-Difference. It is within the mode of Space-Difference that the logos arises. The logos is the entire set of words, symbols, and images that are used to re-present the world as it merely appears to the I. The use of the logos in this way is also known as logic.

An authentic ethics only becomes possible through the unutterable mode of Time-Identity. Any attempt to create a "rational" or "logical" ethical system is necessarily doomed to the failure of inauthenticity. This includes Kant's Categorical Imperative.

<===============================>

This philosophical system is different in that it necessarily begins from the transcendent mode of Time-Identity and proceeds to derive all other ways of thinking -- in the degenerate mode of Space-Difference -- from there. A strict "First Metaphysics" must begin by strictly defining what is meant by space and time. All previous metaphysical constructs have tended to place these two concepts on equal footing, so to speak. Kant defined time as being the form of the internal intuition and space as being the form of the external intuition. This definition, while promising, does not go quite far enough in equating time with identity (or, the absolute fullness of self as given by pure experience) and in equating space with difference (or, the absolute absence of self as given by mere appearance).

The archetypal concepts of time, space, identity, and difference are enough to begin a thorough investigation into the nature of all that is truly the case. In fact, anything more than this as a starting point is philosophical overload, and will cause a collapse into unintelligibility.
Last edited by dkane75 on Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby James No. 2 » Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:39 pm

Welcome to ILP.


Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference.


I wonder what you make of the notion of space-time?

Time means identity (the 'I')


I would have thought, following Heidegger, that you would say; 'Time means Being'. It would be problematic though, to say that 'Being means "the I"; even more so when it is "nothing more and nothing less".

In what sense though do you define 'identity'? If it is some attribute of an object, then you should not be using it to interpret Heidegger.

For no knowable reason, then, the I-world unity annihilates into 'I' and 'world.' It is senseless to ask why this annihilation occurs. This annihilation is perhaps best understood as biological necessity, e.g. hunger and sexual desire. To ask why this annihilation occurs is the same as asking why life exists. It is simply unknowable.


The entrance of 'biological necessity' is problematic, because it relies on a different kind of metaphysics to that which Heidegger is attempting to articulate.

I would have thought, in any case, that annihilation was a product of time itself. Actually the term 'annihilation' is more Sartrean than Heideggerian, who preferred a metaphorics of felicity.

The world, once primordially united with the I, is now a mere appearance for the I.


This is not Heideggerian.




Regards,

James
A free man thinks least of all of death.
James No. 2
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:54 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby dkane75 » Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:21 pm

This is not Heideggerian.


Good. I am not Heideggerian. My name is Dennis Kane. Therefore, I am Kaneian. I am trying to be my own original philosopher here. That is why I have constucted a wholly original "First Metaphysics." I read other philosophers for my own enjoyment, plain and simple. They are an inspiration to me. I am not trying to refute anybody concerning anything. I love anybody who gives an honest shot at original thought.

In what sense though do you define 'identity'? If it is some attribute of an object, then you should not be using it to interpret Heidegger.


I define it just how I said. As time. Nothing more and nothing less.

I wonder what you make of the notion of space-time?


Space-time is a physical construct. All of physics is wholly contained within the degenerate mode of Space-Difference. I have no problem with the space-time construct. However, it is merely "useful." It is not "meaningful." Meaning is what I am searching for. That is the existential project.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby James No. 2 » Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:02 pm

dkane75

Thanks for the response.

I am trying to be my own original philosopher here.


Being original means understanding what has come before you so that you can go past it.



Regards,

James
A free man thinks least of all of death.
James No. 2
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:54 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby dkane75 » Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:31 am

Being original means understanding what has come before you so that you can go past it.


I am pretty sure that being original means "getting at" the origin. In my opinion, there is no better origin than a philosophy that includes the archetypal concepts of space, time, identity, and difference. In fact, if my philosophy attempted to include concepts beyond these four, then the level of origin-ality would suffer.

A true "First Metaphysics" is by definition original. It is an attempt to describe the conditions / grounds whereby any physical "world" is at all possible. The ultimate purpose for this attempt is so that I may in fact "get past" only myself. I constantly want to transcend only myself, and never anyone else. I just want to let all others (who came before me) be, so that they may rest in peace.

It is hard for me to describe just how seriously I take my philosophy. I do not mean that I am offended by people who may attempt to "rip" on it. I just mean that philosophy has gotten me through the worst parts of my life.

I plan on keeping this thread alive. In fact, I do not intend to post on any others. As such, I want to stay on message: Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference. Trust me when I say that you have never heard anything quite like this philosophy. Therefore, I don't expect much in the way of intelligent commentary on it; at least, not immediately.

Although I do feel it is a good idea that one read Being and Time to begin to appreciate what I am trying to get at, this is in no way a requirement. An appreciation of my system requires an inordinate amount of philosophical depth, as opposed to philosophical breadth.

Grasping the following basic concepts:

-Descartes' ego cogito
-Kant's time and space as the forms of the inner and outer intuitions, respectively
-Heidegger's "worldliness"
-Derrida's differance

is a fine way to get in the "mood" to really get into my way of thinking.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Re: "First Metaphysics" by Dennis Kane

Postby north » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:03 am

dkane75 wrote:The "equation" given here --->

Image

reads: Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference. This is more of a profound philosophical statement than anything else. The way that I came up with this equation is perhaps more interesting than the explanation of the equation itself.

It was the Spring of '04 when I just finished reading the book Being and Time by the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. This is widely regarded as being one of the most difficult philosophical works to get through. When I finished the book, I was inspired to leave Tampa and head to California, where I proceeded to spend the next three weeks, in a completely homeless state, wandering the coast from San Diego to San Francisco. I spent the first nine of those days writing an "existential diary," which contained the seeds of the philosophical system that I proceeded to develop. The original diary can be found on this website: geocities.com/spiral2theend.

I describe my philosophical system as "First Metaphysics," in the sense of Descartes' Meditations and Kant's Critiques. Getting down to brass tacks, then, my system begins with the primordial I-world unity. This unity has the character of spirituality. The I-world unity is given by the transcendent mode of Time-Identity.

This mode is given the name of Time-Identity because the phrases "There is time" and "I am" mean the same exact thing. The transcendent mode of Time-Identity can also be thought of as the experience of experiencing itself. It is also understood as the Zen meditative state. In this mode, there is precisely no difference between 'I' and 'world.'

It is vital here to realize that the archetypal concepts of time and identity are self-referring. Time means identity (the 'I'): nothing more and nothing less. Likewise, identity means time: nothing more and nothing less. Putting anything else into these definitions will only lead us astray.

Given these considerations, time is nothing other than the infinite fullness that is the self. Time, in the strictest sense, is simply the absolute fullness that is given by pure experience. It is from this starting point -- the I-world unity that is given by the mode of Time-Identity -- that all else derives.

For no knowable reason, then, the I-world unity annihilates into 'I' and 'world.' It is senseless to ask why this annihilation occurs. This annihilation is perhaps best understood as biological necessity, e.g. hunger and sexual desire. To ask why this annihilation occurs is the same as asking why life exists. It is simply unknowable.

Annihilated, the I and world stand opposite one another. As an opposition, the world is thrown into question for the I. In this way, the world is held as an indeterminacy, or an infinity. As an indeterminate opposition, the world is said to appear to the I. The world, once primordially united with the I, is now a mere appearance for the I.

As the I awaits the resolution of the indeterminate opposition of appearance of the world, the concept of space is given. Without this period of awaiting, space can not be said to exist. Whereas we have understood time as being the absolute fullness that is given by pure experience, we can now understand space as being the absolute emptiness that is given by mere appearance.

Annhilated, the mode of Time-Identity degenerates into "many times with different identities." There is now 'space' between these different times. This degenerate mode is known as the mode of Space-Difference. It is within the mode of Space-Difference that the logos arises. The logos is the entire set of words, symbols, and images that are used to re-present the world as it merely appears to the I. The use of the logos in this way is also known as logic.

An authentic ethics only becomes possible through the unutterable mode of Time-Identity. Any attempt to create a "rational" or "logical" ethical system is necessarily doomed to the failure of inauthenticity. This includes Kant's categorical imperative.

<===============================>

This philosophical system is different in that it necessarily begins from the transcendent mode of Time-Identity and proceeds to derive all other ways of thinking -- in the degenerate mode of Space-Difference -- from there. A strict "First Metaphysics" must begin by strictly defining what is meant by space and time. All previous metaphysical constructs have tended to place these two concepts on equal footing, so to speak. Kant defined time as being the form of the internal intuition and space as being the form of the external intuition. This definition, while promising, does not go quite far enough in equating time with identity (or, the absolute fullness of self as given by pure experience) and in equating space with difference (or, the absolute absence of self as given by mere appearance).

The archetypal concepts of time, space, identity, and difference are enough to begin a thorough investigation into the nature of all that is truly the case. In fact, anything more than this as a starting point is philosophical overload, and will cause a collapse into unintelligibility.




the essence of time is movement, and the essence of movement is substance and/or energy.

as well,

space, a place too manifest, dimension ability too manifest.


we are "OF" the universe. not seperate or outside the universe.

in otherwords we are made of some of the elements of the universe, minerals for instance.
north
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Canada

Postby James No. 2 » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am

it is a good idea that one read Being and Time to begin to appreciate what I am trying to get at


I have read Being and Time.


Good luck with your First Metaphysics. :)


Regards,

James
A free man thinks least of all of death.
James No. 2
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:54 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Dunamis » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:30 am

James,

I have read Being and Time.

No. I think he meant the widely under-read Being On Time: How to catch the Camel Caravan before it leaves for the East, an ancient text written in Sanskrit, and sometimes poorly translated into English, due to ambiguities in grammatical case and the spare use of conjunctions.





Dunamis
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby James No. 2 » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:33 am

No. I think he meant the widely under-read Being On Time: How to catch the Camel Caravan before it leaves for the East, an ancient text written in Sanskrit, and sometimes poorly translated into English, due to ambiguities in grammatical case and the spare use of conjunctions.


Funny though, I've read that one too. :D


James
A free man thinks least of all of death.
James No. 2
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:54 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Dunamis » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:34 am

Funny though, I've read that one too.




:lol:



Dunamis
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby dkane75 » Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:08 pm

Okay, nothing to directly respond to there. Like I said, I don't expect too much in the way of intelligent commentary. Actually, I could not care less about commentary. I am really just trying to get to the anonymous readers of this here forum.

So, let me continue with things here...

I fully understand the desire to include the following concepts: mass, matter, energy, substance, motion, and the like into philosophy. I do not deny the "actuality" of these concepts. However, the concept of "actualness" itself belongs to physics rather than meta-physics.

Meta-physics is an inquiry into the grounds for the possibility of any kind of "physics." This is the precise leap that Kant took and proceeded to blow the philosophical universe off of its feet. Kant ultimately wanted to keep open the possibility that there could be any kind of "inner meaning" in an apparently meaningless physical world.

As far as the "insult" that mine is some kind of arcane, Eastern, mystical way of thinking. I actually take it as a compliment. It shows that you immature thinkers are befuddled as to my philosophy. If you were able to comprehend it right off the bat, then I would not feel that I had accomplished anything of note. The fact that you immediately "shove it aside" into the category of "mysticism" only reinforces my confidence in the profound originality of my thinking.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby Russiantank » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:10 pm

"The fact that you immediately "shove it aside" into the category of "mysticism" only reinforces my confidence in the profound originality of my thinking."

If thats a criteria for profound originality, than weve got alot of profoundly original philosophers on this site...
Russiantank
Thinker
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:10 am
Location: Newton, MA

Postby detrop » Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:04 pm

Dennis:

I stopped by your site and I quite liked it. I was especially inspired by your "journal," and your nine days of homelessness. I've had similiar excursions myself and thoroughly enjoyed them. Oh, and your idea of starting a commune of workers is brilliant. I've had the same goals for a while now...just can't find anyone interested, except for the god forsaken hippies numb from sniffing glue and Grateful Dead concerts.

Your "metaphysical" theory breathes an air a familiarity to me. I have recently been studying some remarkable literature on the net, written by various physicists, in which there are strong comparisions made between Quantum Physics, Eastern thought, Phenomenology, and Sartre's theory of consciousness. It is some thought provoking stuff and I get quite excited reading it. You too might have an interest, as you have displayed your interest in Heidegger, a fellow phenomenologist. Here are some quotes from various resources I have collected over time that might spark some interest for you, and which appear to have parallel meanings to what you have proposed in your theory:

As Sartre speaks of the circuit of selfness and the world so too in our analogy with quantum physics the Ego and World are to be described and explicated as subject and object whose origins are in the developing possibilities and who are haunted by them even as they become Ego and World. Human and transcendental subjectivities are genuinely unified as moments that are not antithetical in the same way that saying a photon is going to slit one and slit two is not a contradiction.


As Sartre states of the relation of the self to the consciousness on which it is founded and from which it and its meaningful actions are the precipitate, there is a circuit of selfness (Circuit de ipséité). This is a relation of the possible ways the self may be seen as carrying out its goals to the consciousness which is acting. As it acts, consciousness does so in light of possible courses of action, or of possible selves it might become. These possibles are automatically there as the horizon for the projects of consciousness, and when reflection takes place the enacted ones are then seen as having been there "already." Sartre illustrates this point: The self appears as having desired to drink from the glass while "the-glass-drunk-from haunts the full glass as its possible and constitutes it as a glass to be drunk from."


Thus reflective consiousness can properly be called a moral consciousness since it cannot arise without at the same moment disclose values. (BN, 95)

SARTRE ON THE BODY

I am my body: The body is nothing other than the for-itself; it is not an in-itself in the for-itself. (BN, 309) I am not a relation to my hand in the same utilizing attitude as I am in relation to the pen; I am my hand. (BN, 323)

The body is the (anthroposentric) universe: ... the body is identified with the whole world inasmuch as the world is the total situation of the for-itself and the measure of its existence. (BN, 309)

Body extension and technology: My body is everywhere: the bomb that destroys my house also damages my body in so far the house was already an indication of my body. This is why the body always extends across the tool which it utilizes: it is at the end of the cane on which I lean and against the earth; it is at the end of the telescope which shows me the stars; it is on the chair, in the whole house; for it is my adaption to these tools. (BN, 325)


Cool, huh? There is much more.

Now for the bad news: As much as I'd like to discuss this stuff with you, I have quarantined myself from this wretched place for fear of turning into slime. Today I keep one eye on this place, for people like yourself, and hope to save them before its too late. I will mention no names, but I have developed a subtle paranoia and intuition that this place is infested with flakes.

If you'd like, register at "ThinEdge.org" and bring your material there. The place is small and cozy, unlike this market place of buzzing flies and snake-oil medicine shows.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Nice

Postby Nientilin » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:28 pm

To Dennis and detrop:

I lack the physical capacity to communicate explicitly how much I agree with you.

It is only in your ideas that I find peace of mind.

When I read your comments I get this weird vision/analogy of matter fighting energy in a never ending battle that creates the conciousness we experience.

Like the energy is the truth and the matter keeps trying to steal it.

Or perhaps the energy ran away from gravity(the center of matter) and now matter is trying in vain to catch up to it even though it knows it has to let it go again so that this land of conciousness can keep going.

This phenemenon occurs out of the sacrifice the singularity made to be with created "others."

I sound like a crazy person...help?

-Joey
Nientilin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:39 am

Postby dkane75 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:24 pm

detrop said:
Oh, and your idea of starting a commune of workers is brilliant. I've had the same goals for a while now...just can't find anyone interested, except for the god forsaken hippies numb from sniffing glue and Grateful Dead concerts.


I would say the main reason that I am inspired to philosophize is because I am terribly depressed by the world in which I find myself. This has been a growing problem of mine for over 10 years now. I find myself increasingly alienated by a world that gives me two measly options. The first option is that I be happy in the "rat race" of perpetual productivity and consumption. The second option is that I suspend all disbelief and "hand my mind over" to a painfully obtuse "metaphysical" construct (Christianity, Scientology, Ken Wilber, etc).

I want the best of both worlds, however. I want to both live in this world and transcend it. The only way to do this is via a philosophy that uses the logos (logic) in order to get beyond it. I believe that my philosophy does this better than any other that I have come across.

The point of this is the following. If my philosophy is not capable of inspiring some sort of authentically philosophical community, then it is no good. I don't meant a community that is founded on a "particular" philosophy. I mean a community that is founded on philosophy-as-such. A place where people will be able to stretch their minds to the fullest extent possible.

I want this place to be replete with spontaneously generated philosophy bull sessions. I find this type of thing infinitely more satisfying than the "online" world that we are currently forced to use. To me, the internet is nothing but a tool that allows like-minded people to physically come together and share their lives in highly fulfilling ways. If this "message board" thing is all the internet is good for (at least for us philosophical types), then I might as well find a cliff right now.

I don't want to continue living like this. I need to be around others who are able to stimulate my mind. I feel like I am living life as a high school senior amid a class of fifth-graders. I just can't relate to them. They are infinitely boring. And therefore, profoundly depressing.

I really don't care where this theoretical "philosophical community" might take root. I currently live in Tampa, Florida (where I am from), so this is the default place for me. I have a website at http://tampacoop.lnux.us, and a message board linked from there. There is always the default option of simply going to one of the many other "intentional communities" that are listed on http://ic.org. However, I simply am not capable of submitting to their juvenile philosophies. Not to mention the distaste that I have for all of those "god forsaken hippies numb from sniffing glue and Grateful Dead concerts." ;)

detrop said:
I have recently been studying some remarkable literature on the net, written by various physicists, in which there are strong comparisions made between Quantum Physics, Eastern thought, Phenomenology, and Sartre's theory of consciousness.


Physicists: got no problem with them. What they do is highly interesting, and at times, immanently useful.

Eastern thought: tries to "point the way" to absolute Truth by way of riddle and paradox. I find it highly enjoyable to read (meditate on), but by its very nature, it doesn't "hold its own" in a world that is philosophically dominated by the mere "correctness" of the logos.

Phenomenology: whatever it is, I guess it's okay. I actually find Husserl's attempt to "out-Descartes" Descartes pretty funny.

Sartre: while he may once in a while say some pretty interesting stuff, it is always obliterated by his goddam word-shitting. In other words, he seems to intentionally violate the "Principle of Least Convolution" (my term). It seems that some of those 20th century French philosophers were hired for no other reason but to give us all inferiority complexes. Therefore, whatever the term "existence precedes essence" may actually mean, I could never hope to sift through the detritus that everywhere infiltrates his writing. Of course, it may just be that I am stupid.

detrop said:
Now for the bad news: As much as I'd like to discuss this stuff with you, I have quarantined myself from this wretched place for fear of turning into slime. Today I keep one eye on this place, for people like yourself, and hope to save them before its too late. I will mention no names, but I have developed a subtle paranoia and intuition that this place is infested with flakes.


Ha ha, thanks for the heads up :) . I don't know, I think this board fits my purposes all right. I mean, there is nothing that these nitwit posters are able to say that I haven't already thought a million times before. There is nothing harsher for me to deal with than my own mind! And like I've already said before: it isn't the posters that I'm trying to "get to." It's the silent majority that is content to surf the internet and think for awhile before they decide to throw their two cents in (if ever). If I can only get a handful of these decent-minded people to get in touch with me (PM or email), then I will be happy. It all goes back to my overwhelming desire to start an authentic "philosophical community" in which to live, work, and love.

Nientilin (Joey) wrote:
I sound like a crazy person...help?


Yes you do. I have no idea what you are saying. But that doesn't mean I don't like you!

Actually I quite like this one,
Like the energy is the truth and the matter keeps trying to steal it.


Keep up the good work!
Last edited by dkane75 on Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby dkane75 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:05 pm

Since I have been living with the philosophical system at the top of this thread for over a year now, I am fully able to understand each one of the points outlined in it. However, my whole purpose for using this forum is to fully "flesh it out" so that anyone else will be able to grasp it as well.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the "arch-concepts" of Time-Identity and Space-Difference. These are "modal" concepts. That is, they have to do with different ways (modes) in which to be.

The mode of Time-Identity is the primordial "way" in which to be. It is the transcendent mode. As humans, we have all experienced this mode in those fleeting moments of "existential bliss." There are no thoughts; there is just Being.

The best way to "understand" this way of being is to "think time." Or better yet, to "experience time." By doing this, we come into an understanding of the absolute fullness that is given by time-itself. This absolute fullness is our very selves. It is the 'I.' Indeed, it is how we can come to understand the concept of identity-as-such.

Time means identity. Identity means time. Between time and identity, there is precisely no difference. The transcendent mode of Time-Identity is the mode from which all other ways of thinking can be derived.

Upon annihilation (see first post), Time-Identity degenerates into "many times with different identities." There are now "gaps" inside of the absolute fullness that is given by time-itself. Time now gains the appearance of being a geometrical structure, i.e. a straight line. However, this is always only the mere appearance of time.

It is from this mere appearance of time (a line with gaps in it) that the archetypal concept of "space" is given. More precisely, the gaps themselves are what give us this concept. These gaps are the infinity of awaiting the resolution of the annhilation of the primordial I-world spiritual unity (see first post).

Space means difference (of "times"). Difference means space. Between space and difference, there is perfect identity. The degenerate mode of Space-Difference is the mode in which all other ways of thinking (all other "philosophies") can be found.

While the modal difference between Time-Identity and Space-Difference is the major modal difference (the ontological difference), the modal differences between the various philosophies of Space-Difference are minor modal differences (they are ontic differences). These concepts (ontic vs. ontological) are explicated in the opening sections of Heidegger's Being and Time.

All of these considerations are meant to allow us to "take a step back" and understand the concepts of space and time in a profoundly richer way than normal. We are now able to understand that only time is absolutely real. It is that which allows each one of us to understand ourselves as ourselves. Time is the always Identical. Time is Identity.

It is only when we "forget" our inner selves that anything like space can be given. Space, as a lacking, is always a lacking of the absolute Truth that is given by the transcendent mode of Time-Identity. Time is the whereupon of all that truly is. Space is the whereupon of all that merely appears.

Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference. This is the Truth.
Last edited by dkane75 on Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Atom

Postby Nientilin » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:45 pm

Ok this is gonna sound even crazier but I like the analogy.


Imagine our identity is based on a perfect pinpoint at which all of our perception is generated. Much like the time-identity you were speaking of in your first post. Now what if that point was an atom, and the space-difference it experienced was caused by the flucuation of electrons within it at different frequencies or "wavelengths" of thought.

Take for example when your heart beats. Perhaps it is a single atom within the center of your heart that, inspired by the energy it receives from all the mechanisims of the body contributing to make the heart contract, explodes into different frequencies of energy.(ie alpha/beta/theta brainwaves. It's orbital levels define precisely what type of energy or feeling it is. That feeling or electron orbital state, again through the mechanisms of the body(specifcally the nervous circulatory systems in this case, is translated into the physical expression of the body. That expression is catpured in memory and sent back to heart when similar expressions are recieved by the senses.

More energy to the heart means it beats faster, our brain activity increases...our awareness hightens.

The atom in our hearts is unique because it's quantum mechanics allow it to defy the physics of the macroscopic world. Through the body those defiances of physical law can be brought into that macrospic world resulting in the "miracles of faith" that we sometimes experience. More importantly, the physical law of nature can be sent into our microscopic world...saving us from going crazy...like me!


Somebody get me a shrink.
Nientilin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:39 am

Re: Atom

Postby dkane75 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:21 pm

Nientilin,

I simply cannot keep up with you :-)

Would you like to be part of a real-world "philosophical community" to perhaps relieve your mind? I know I sure would!
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby detrop » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:54 pm

Dennis:

I would say the main reason that I am inspired to philosophize is because I am terribly depressed by the world in which I find myself. This has been a growing problem of mine for over 10 years now.


You too, eh? Luckily I worked myself out of this reputed depression by, oh, how shall I say it...coming to terms with the universe, I guess, around my twenty-sixth year. For me, my sense of despair is founded on being alone, really, without 'connecting' with friends, who have come and gone as long as I can remember. Being a somewhat unorthodox person my friendships inevitably end due to fundamental differences in priciples, or I just develop an outright disrespect for them, and vice-versa. I've always been a team-player but have been somewhat of a lone-wolf since twenty-seven. From that point I set a goal to find people of 'philosophical inclination' on the internet, and, if I played my cards right, hopefully meet them. Needless to say there is a shortage of intelligence in the world, and I lack the medium to find the ones that are out there; didn't go to college, don't do bars and clubs, and am not much of a socialite. Rarely do I become friends with my co-workers either, not many construction workers escape the stereotypical box they exist in.

The first option is that I be happy in the "rat race" of perpetual productivity and consumption. The second option is that I suspend all disbelief and "hand my mind over" to a painfully obtuse "metaphysical" construct (Christianity, Scientology, Ken Wilber, etc).


I couldn't agree more. There is a reality to such cynicism, however much it appears to be a great generalization. If only you coulda turned out 'normal,' eh? Kidding aside, my strongest objection, and perhaps my greatest shortcoming, is that I WILL NOT participate in a capitalist economy if I have a choice. This resolve has kept my pockets empty, reducing me to a wanderer of sorts...spend a little time here, make a few bucks to get by...and move on. In the last ten years I haven't lived in the same place for over three months at a time. My pattern is seasonal, living in the mountains during the summer...the beach during the winter. I work outside and am quite particular about the climate.

On a another note, I see nothing better to do than to work to change those two situations, or get old and die trying. The option to 'drop-out' is always there, but I almost feel it to be my duty to have a positive influence on the matter. I can remove myself from the setting and also take efforts to change it, I think. If I fail, then I've lost nothing. If I succeed...

I want the best of both worlds, however. I want to both live in this world and transcend it.


Don't we all. I have a simple formula (well, not simple, but if I had to print it on a t-shirt it would look like this): live as if you are mortal, with the prospect that you might not be. What is certain is that life can be pleasurable, and enjoyed. We know this much, and it should come a logical consequence that we promote that possibility to its fullest potential. There is nothing terrible about dying, but I think there can be trouble if in living we become anxious and reckless. The irony I have found is that religion has caused this problem, as well as nihilistic atheism. Both need to be absolved.

The point of this is the following. If my philosophy is not capable of inspiring some sort of authentically philosophical community, then it is no good. I don't meant a community that is founded on a "particular" philosophy.


Yes, of course. I think that while individuality should be preserved, there are also certain objective truths, or rules, which can exist to promote cooperation between individuals within a group. The community, as you say, can be founded on a set of basic imperatives, but also allow for improvisation and creative advancements. There is a fine line between a 'cult' and a free community, as you know, and I think a modified democratic political setting would work great.

I want this place to be replete with spontaneously generated philosophy bull sessions. I find this type of thing infinitely more satisfying than the "online" world that we are currently forced to use.


Absolutely. Person to person philosophy is where its at, dude. Some of the greatest conversations I have ever had were struck up in a coffee shop with complete strangers. We got so jacked on coffee, owner included, that she kept the place open after closing time and we talked well into the morning hours. Party at the coffee shop. That's the good stuff.

To me, the internet is nothing but a tool that allows like-minded people to physically come together and share their lives in highly fulfilling ways.


Bingo.

I really don't care where this theoretical "philosophical community" might take root.


Check this out. I own five acres of land in Galax county Virginia. It is bordering a fourty-acre abandoned x-man tree farm (the black-furs grew up and overwhelmed the fraziar-furs) owned by my father. As far as I know, he hasn't made any efforts to develop the land yet, and he doesn't seen opposed to the idea of myself doing something with it. Actually, a few hundred of the x-mas trees are salvageable, but would have to be trimmed the previous spring in order to be sold that following winter. My father said I could have them, and I've been planning to sell them for a while, I just haven't got around to it. Anyway, fourty-five acres is quite a stretch of land, and with a few permits for building (and there are ways to avoid having to get permits, too), why, one could design a fantastic community if one were so inclined. I am eventully going to build a simple cabin for myself if I don't end up organizing a plan to create a 'village' of sorts on the property. Although in my mind I see a great complex with many people living there. Philosophers, and the most beautiful women you could imagine....walking around naked. We would have our own farms, hunt and fish, have festivals, music and games, arrange traveling,...oh it would be awesome!

How are you with a saw, a tractor, and a set of post-hole diggers? [wink]

The area is very rural, with rolling hills and woodlands, but there is a decent sized town a few miles from there, so its not off the map completely. It is settled in the blue-ridge mountains.

Not to mention the distaste that I have for all of those "god forsaken hippies numb from sniffing glue and Grateful Dead concerts."


Well, they got the right idea, as far as natural living is concerned, but they're so burnt-out and too liberal. Lazy too. You can hide a bar of soap under a hippies work-boots and he'd never find it. But the women, oh yes, if I could get them to shave their legs I'd be in business. I'd be making babies alright.

Physicists: got no problem with them. What they do is highly interesting, and at times, immanently useful.


Yes, always keep an eye on the latest discoveries in physics. Philosophy is indeed important, but science gives us the material to work with. Science gives us the form, philosophy gives it value. They work together and are crucial counter-parts.

Eastern thought: tries to "point the way" to absolute Truth by way of riddle and paradox.


I also think that eastern thought has its strength in using metaphor and allegory to arrive at ethical elucidations, many times far more powerful than what logical directives can inspire. Granted, it is not the calculated practice of westerm thinking, but it is indeed a very 'anti-technological' convention and has its merits in introducing aesthetic and conservative principles for living. Its quite fun, you're right.

Phenomenology: whatever it is, I guess it's okay. I actually find Husserl's attempt to "out-Descartes" Descartes pretty funny.


Phenomenology is da bomb, dude. Husserl was trying to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism, albeit his 'epoche' is a controversial method and many find it ridiculous. Still you should check it out, or at least survey an introduction and get a taste for it.

Sartre: while he may once in a while say some pretty interesting stuff, it is always obliterated by his goddam word-shitting.


Yeah, that's what I hear. It seems that those philosophers who invent their own terminologies get the worst reactions. But what is failed to be considered is that all philosophy terminology was invented some time or another, and often posthumously credited as being useful. I envisage a furture where "Dasein" is a household word.

20th century French philosophers were hired for no other reason but to give us all inferiority complexes.


Haha, that's funny but true. Personally, and I might be the exception, I find Sartre's philosophy to be extremely empowering. Not so much Camus, though. That guy was a party-pooper, smart, but terribly depressed.

whatever the term "existence precedes essence" may actually mean


In a nut-shell it means that if God does not exist there is at least one being that is not defined before it exists...and that being is man. If there is no artisan to design the image of man, then man will be determined through his choices, and his essence becomes historical, or what Sartre called a 'facticity'after the fact of his choosing.

If I can only get a handful of these decent-minded people to get in touch with me (PM or email), then I will be happy. It all goes back to my overwhelming desire to start an authentic "philosophical community" in which to live, work, and love.


This has been my agenda for several years now. Unfortunately, all my favorite posters don't show any interest in organizing such a thing. Most of them are pursuing degrees in school, or are married with youngins'.

Ha ha, thanks for the heads up


Its like this. I am tempermental and my moods swing like a pendulum. I love these people and I hate them. This is the problem with these fucking internet forums: one can never be sure what intentions are behind the posts. If I were in person, I doubt that I would ever get upset because I am an excellent character judge...I can smell honesty, I can see the eyes, hear the tone...watch the body language, etc. You can't do this at these goddamn forums. Dealing with shady people all my life has caused me to be somewhat suspicious of most people and I rarely trade a benefit for a doubt.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby James No. 2 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:28 pm

Dennis

It shows that you immature thinkers are befuddled as to my philosophy.


Obviously. But tell me, do we ever reach the point where we will be deemed to have 'understood' your philosophy?

It seems you criticise some of the responses here for supposedly under-crediting the power of your insight. But it also seems you are making some assumptions of your own in this regard.

Also, you seem to carry gems like these around with you;

(1) Immanently, I am an original and profound thinker.
(2) If you think I am wrong, you have misunderstood me, (for I am right.)

This reminds me of this parody of a prominent thinker's mode of argument;

Goodman:
Zabludowski has insinuated that my thesis that p is false, on the basis of alleged counterexamples. But these so- called "counterexamples" depend on construing my thesis that p in a way that it was obviously not intended -- for I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.


Anyway Dennis, keep posting; I will get a better sense of your 'originality' that way. If you must know (which I'm sure you don't); as it stands, what you have said does not only sound unoriginal, but superficial compared to the power of the thinkers you cite.

I am for instance dubious on your use of the concept of identity. This may of course just be semantics.

You will have to tell me how this is adequate to Heidegger's notion of Being-there, or if different why your notion is superior...

Detrop

I think the idea of a philosophical community is a good one.

If I were in person, I doubt that I would ever get upset because I am an excellent character judge...I can smell honesty, I can see the eyes, hear the tone...watch the body language, etc. You can't do this at these goddamn forums. Dealing with shady people all my life has caused me to be somewhat suspicious of most people and I rarely trade a benefit for a doubt.


Haha I ain't that bad. :wink: I really have read Being and Nothingness.

That Dunamis is a real rogue, though...

8)


Regards,

James
A free man thinks least of all of death.
James No. 2
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:54 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby detrop » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:14 pm

#2,

But tell me, do we ever reach the point where we will be deemed to have 'understood' your philosophy?


Let me ask you this. If you ever felt like you understood a philosophy, how would you prove it? You see the attempt begets itself, and we enter the language game. There is no more evidence that what is intended is expressed in the thoughts of the speaker as there is of an understanding of the intention in the ears of the listener. It should be obvious to the philosopher that language is a catalyst for actualizing an effect- a material significance- a physical application of a theory to the world by a joint effort: language serves the function of extending intention into space to unite other intentions for actualization. We do mean something when we speak, but we need not invest so much in lucidity if the alternative results in empirical effects, if even roughly and not exactly. Keep it simple. This is to say that rather then spending time conversing in extremity, that being an overcomplicated complex of language, one should 'dumb down' the vocabulary so that its corespondance is evidenced more easily, or, so coordination between intentions can yield definite results.

The problem with philosophy is that often a specialized vocabulary has adverse effects on what its intentions, those of the speaker, wish to communicate. And do not be fooled. Even in an apparant cooperative exchange of technical jargon, which is evident by a lack of objection, it is still uncertain that there is true understanding, rather what is happening is a consistency within a web of language- that being the declared understanding of the terms therein in such a way that the many possible meanings produced by the greater expanse of language increases the probability that sense is made out of it, however, again, proving coherency is impossible. The progress of a discussion can appear to be homogenous in the absence of objection, but the more complex it is, the greater the area for ambiguity, though this doesn't compromise the discussion. It passes unstated but nonetheless in consideration and without emphasis.

A language dissipates into thin air if it cannot form action through corespondance, which in turn is evident insofar as two combined efforts produce tangible results.

Do you understand why I am an anti-philosopher? It is not because I lack the conceptual continuity to be one, but that I see no results from 99% of it. I've got a thesaurus too, but I am also aware that there needn't be fifteen ways to say one thing. Observe the dictionary: every word denotes another word which acts as its definition, ad infinitum. This is why I deduce language down to an empirical function and determine its value by its material effects in the world. A 'conversation' never did anything. It is work that creates. I am a worker, not a philosopher.

I think the idea of a philosophical community is a good one.


You're invited, but only if you take back those terrible things you said about Jean-Paul and Simone.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby detrop » Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:04 am

Nientilin:

Somebody get me a shrink.


Fuck the shrinks. Tedious toads, as Nietzsche called them. Forever searching for origins, backwards...one becomes a crab.

Your thoughts are good, it is imagination and free-thinking. Einstein would love you, and he didn't comb his hair. Does he need a shrink? Hell no.

Here's a crazy idea for you, right up your alley:

A physicist once said "the moon is not there unless someone is looking at it."

This is the application of the uncertainty principle on a macrocosmic scale. Now this is where it gets funky.

It takes observation for a particle to attain a definite position in a space, but upon this observation, its velocity cannot be determined. How is that? I dunno. Must be relativity. To determine the velocity of a particle, there must be a motionless reference point, but if all particles are moving simultaneously, nothing is motionless. What then is the reference point?

Aha! It is the collapse of the wave function, my friend. This is a double conundrum. Here's how I think it works. The mind is a collaboration of particles itself, but the act of observation creates a time distortion by what I think Sartre meant as a nihilation of being. Yes, that's right, Sartre was an idealist in disguise, but don't tell anyone, the world is not ready for this yet. Consciousness occurs on a non-linear plane in which its act of observation cancels the synapse...when the neuron ceases to fire, a 'blank' in time and space is created, that blank, or total absence of Being is the observation, which extends into a parallel dimension. When a wave function is grounded into a synaptical event, the firing causes the distribution of particles to occur through an electro-chemicle medium, and the data is raw, or 'unarranged.' The 'concept', or the cognition of awareness, emerges from the parallel dimension, and takes form idealistically, or 'intentionally' as the 'object observed,' after the energy charge is grounded, or, when the particle position is definite. This is where Plato comes in. The 'idea' is the reversal of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. All concepts exist in another dimension (call it the mind of God) and cannot take shape until spirit, the emergent property of the neural-net, manifests the form of the idea by collapsing the wave function through the synaptical event.

The 'mind' is a mirror where essences come through, but as reflections, appearing as reversals. 'Matter' is the silhouette of the 'idea,' and cannot exist until it is observed or conceptualized, which is metaphorical to viewing the image in the mirror.

The 'macrocosmic' moon is an imprint of extremely slow particle positions, existing in a slower time frame then that of the synaptical acceleration. But the concept of the 'moon' only exists as the organized series of collapsed wave functions, or data receptions of each individual bit of particle information, as a series of synaptical events creating the observable image of the 'moon' as an object and not an idea. The moon is an idea, but cannot exist as such in a spacio-temporal framework. The raw particle information is formless until it is organized into the idea of the 'moon' which is already existing in a parallel dimension.

You see, there is no difference between the sensible data of an apple and an air-plane...its all particle activity. The mind is running on a circuit that 'downloads' forms from another time dimension....from 'God's mind,' or, if you prefer a monism, from our mind....as we are God.

Now, the questions is, do I need a shrink?
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby James No. 2 » Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:15 am

You're invited, but only if you take back those terrible things you said about Jean-Paul and Simone.


Haha yeah. Sartre was taking LSD though whilst struggling to finish the final proof reading for the Critique. Don't know anything about his sex life, though.



Regards,

James
A free man thinks least of all of death.
James No. 2
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:54 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby dkane75 » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:58 am

Have read through everyone's responses. Just saw a double feature of Red Eye and Bros. Grimm. Alone as usual. Not bad stuff.

I get tired of using the quote feature so much, so let me just wing it here.

James-
You guys were having a little bit of fun with that whole camels going East thing. So, I just took a little jab back. So sue me.

As far as me thinking that my philosophy is "so much more right" than everyone else's... it goes without saying because it is my philosophy. And I am me. My farts don't stink to me. Everyone else's do.

Just a quick hit into why I think mine is so good. It is highly logical. It is light n' tight. It begins with the concept of identity (the one, the 'I', time, Being) and derives the entire physical world (spatial dimensionality) from it. This concept of identity is my arch-arch-concept. It is what makes each one of us identical to our very selves. There is no way to know it or even understand it. It simply must be believed.

Also, as long as you all are simple blips on my screen, you do not exist as real people. You are me. I read your words as if it is me that is thinking them. Since I can be very harsh towards myself, any real people that may be out there -- if they are sensitive enough -- will be prone to feel a little sting.


detrop-
I've got to hand it to you. You are very good. Not quite good enough to get my exact brand of sarcasm, though. When I say things like, "whatever that means" when referring to a philosophical concept or school of thought, I am really saying that I find said schmeal to be wholly derivative or simply utterly pointless. What I really mean by this is that I simply don't enjoy reading them. They don't capture my imagination. Whatever else might be going on as we read a text, the first requirement is that we physically enjoy what we our doing. It is all too easy to give me brain cramps. I have read far too much philosophy to waste my time on texts that my brain refuses to allow me to ingest.

There are certain key words that cause me to run, kicking and screaming, from any philosophical text. Spirit is a big one (hello Hegel?). Even though I use the word "spirituality" in my own philosophy, I use it only colloquailly. Consciousness is another one (hello Husserl and Sartre?). I think this is a faux-concept. I find it utterly un-philosophical. In fact, my philosophy is much more dependent on what it leaves out than what is included. I do not have the reasons for this spelled out (at least at the present moment). For now, I will just say that there is an unpleasant whiff of "physicality" that I cannot get past. Mind is another one of these concepts. A big one. I don't like them. I don't like them in the least.

And finally, detrop, I am quick to go places at the drop of a dime (as you are probably aware.) Although, I have slowed down a little this past year. I just turned 30. I am in shape, able to do some useful work. Don't have any specialized skills though. Used to wrestle in high school. Was able to bench about twice my weight (I'm not all that big). I joined the army when I was 22 (got discharged in seven months) and scored the highest on the Physical Fitness test out of my whole Basic Training company (scored 285 out of 300). As long as I can feel good about who/what I am working for, then I don't have any problem busting my ass.

I don't know. Maybe life can turn out okay after all. Was feeling slightly suicidal yesterday. Was that too honest?
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby dkane75 » Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:56 am

To all you "Jameseans" out there:

I am just going to say this one more time. I have precisely no problem with any other philosophers out there, past, present, or future. I don't need to refute them and I don't need to "hijack" their concepts. Because my philosophical system is profoundly original, I couldn't care less about Da-sein or anything else like that. It doesn't do anything for me. Sure, I might have my own interpretation of it, but my philosophy has precisely no place for it. I don't care. I just don't.

I don't understand the obsession on calling me out over this "identity" thing. In my very first post, I said that identity is time. I can't be any more explicit than that. Now, since this idea has never before been explicitly stated, there is a good chance you haven't been exposed to this kind of thinking. It is abstraction at is most profound depth. In fact, if your mind is even able to understand what I am saying here, then there is a good chance that you will develop a terrible brain-ache. My philosophy is intended to be a mind-fuck of the worst kind. It is like having you neural pathways "scrubbed cleaned" by one of those steel wool dishwashing pads. In my opinion, this kind of "pain" is necessary in order to be able truly get on a way towards transcendence. Of course, I fully realize that most people are not interested in feeling this kind of pain. Therefore, I will have no hurt feelings if my philosophy doesn't make the New York Times Bestseller list.

Further, I am not trying to prove the "truth" of my philosophy. My philosophy is entirely contained within the first post starting with the words "my system begins with" and ending at the <===========> deal. I let it stand on its own two feet. Now, it happens to be my own opinion that my philosophy happens to be the best philosophy that has ever existed in any universe at any time. This is not strange, however. People always think that their philosophies are the best. Even people whose philosophies amount to "damn them Chinese" think that their philosophies are the best things ever. I'm no different.

There are no philosophies floating around "out there." They exist in our minds. It may very well be that Sartre, for example, is the greatest thinker ever and that detrop is his prophet. I don't pretend to understand anything that Sartre is trying to say (except in the most superficial of ways).

But I will say this. Very few of the major philosophers even attempt to create an honest to goodness metaphysical construct that attempts to explain "all that is the case" in a highly rigorous, formalized way. Wittgenstein's Tractatus is the only example that I have of this kind of attempt. People such as Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel have all attempted to create "meta-systems," but the boundaries of their systems were not precisely defined.

The boundaries of my system are wholly contained within the "equation" at the top of this thread. It reads: Time-Identity transcends Space-Difference. Now you can take it or leave it. But it can't be denied that it is compact to the point of scientific/mathematical precision. I'm trying to express a "First Metaphysics" in a way that Einstein, Feynman, or Kaku would "get." I have no interest in appealing to the eloquent, loquacious, prosaic philosophical set. I am not any kind of novelist. Sartre was (and it shows). I'm not.

I'm more of a computer programmer than a "writer." I know my way around loops, iterations, and other fun algorithms. I just want my system to be able to "execute" like any well written C++ program should. Good, clean "code" is what I want. Get rid of the excess baggage and let it be lean and mean.

In other words, no matter how hard you guys try, you can't alter me from my course by asking questions of me that my philosophy is in no way "programmed" to address. Mine is wholly a transcendental philosophy. It has nothing whatever to do with so-called "epistemology," which I'm sure you "Jameseans" are so fond of discussing. I want to be able to "get beyond" this world rather than revelling in its hopelessly confused swamp of details.
dkane75
BANNED
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:54 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users