Which is First?

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:19pm

Wel, crap. Logic forces me to regard my trolls as my followers.
They follow me from thread to thread, and post underneath my posts wherever I make them.

Their voice in my life:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3JGxj2rvAs[/youtube]

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:23pm

Leftism.

Sauwelios · August 17, 2017, 7:24pm

Funny that Fixed Cross does seem to be more popular than Satyr these days. I mean, formerly Satyr was the one known for his many sock-puppets, and suspected of having even more.

Wait, could this mean Alf and Leyla are not Satyr’s sock-puppets?!

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:31pm

Funny indeed.

Also my ascribed sock puppets are getting to be of notably higher status.
Im honoured that I am considered capable of inventing Fausts mind and persona.

James_S_Saint · August 17, 2017, 7:44pm

The term is “groupie”.

Alf · August 17, 2017, 8:06pm

I was only talking about the fact that we know nearly nothing about the ILP member “Faust”. Who really knows more than this about “Faust”; username, avatar, numbers of posts, registration date, post content, pm-content?

Leyla · August 17, 2017, 9:08pm

As for him, the term is “delusional overestimation” of himself, alternating with “persecution mania” (don’t know, which is first)

James_S_Saint · August 17, 2017, 9:11pm

I can tell you that Faust and FC are very, very different people.

Xunzian · August 18, 2017, 7:24am

I’m not really sure what the initial “seed” is, does it matter? Substance and function is an iterative and mutually reinforcing process and we’re right in the middle of it. When you’re having a drink, what is first? The liquid you are drinking? The vessel containing what you are drinking? The hands that pick up what you are drinking? The eyes that see it so you can pick it up? The nose that smells it and the mouth that tastes it? The body that needs it? The totality of these things together?

Does it matter? A chopped off hand in the desert isn’t picking up a drink. Liquid can exist qua liquid without need of being drank. Etc.

What’s most important? Well, what question are you asking? Ontology and epistemology are complimentary in that way.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:

Xiong Shili:

The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. […] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word “principle” is a general term for both substance and function, whereas “material force” refers only to function. When the meaning of the word “material force” was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[…]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.

Feng Youlan:

Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[…]

In our system we can still say that “the principle is one but its manifestations are many.” But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .

Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan’s “A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy.”
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming:

We have already suggested that man’s structure of being and man’s process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming’s perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man’s being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.

–Subjective and Ontological Reality – An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming’s Mode of Thinking.

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a “given structure” we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the “substance” Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan’s more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren’t taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as “principle”.

Fixed_Cross · August 18, 2017, 3:52pm

The liquid we are drinking is first. We are made of that liquid. Or thirst is a function of us already being that liquid.

These two are indeed impossible to separate. Ive written on this in some depth as the first steps to explicating value ontology.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1-ontology

But logic and ethics are not included in that same dynamic. They form a different aggregate together.
They are, as I see it, prior to it the pair of “what might knowledge be” (epistemology) is and “what might be known” (ontology).
Epistemology and ontology are both radically complex, demand much to be established beforehand.
Phenomenology is even more complex, as it requires these two as well as the stream of observations that is to be modelled into the two -
that all relies on logic, which relies on the choice of adhering to logic, which is a selection of a standard, which is ethics.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:

Xiong Shili:

The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. […] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word “principle” is a general term for both substance and function, whereas “material force” refers only to function. When the meaning of the word “material force” was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[…]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.

Thanks for posting.
Indeed it is impossible to discern principle from the substance it brings about -
the Principe is the acting consistency (in the sense of being-consistent), the substance is the passive consistency (as being accumulation of a consistent type)
in physics, we have the principle of gravitation which can not be separated from the principle of mass, and yet they are different things.

Feng Youlan:

Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[…]

In our system we can still say that “the principle is one but its manifestations are many.” But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .

I don’t like how this guy taks about principle, he links it to class, category. I don’t think that is ultimately very accurate.
I prefer the notion of principles that give rise to phenomena, as the Chinese philosophers that I do know (all of them through martial arts) tend to work by.

Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan’s “A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy.”
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming:

We have already suggested that man’s structure of being and man’s process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming’s perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man’s being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.

–Subjective and Ontological Reality – An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming’s Mode of Thinking.

A qualifier: a structure is itself the result of a process.
A structure is thus a segment of a larger process, which itself is processed within that larger process;

Might we say that structure is a framework for specific type of process?

“The World In Its Totality” if such a phrase isn’t nonsensical, is simply process - there is no definitive structure to it
Structures emerge in the generality of process, to be processed further -
into what, though?

Processing toward what?
What is the ground of the “should” in Weimings thought?

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a “given structure” we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the “substance” Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan’s more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren’t taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as “principle”.

Right. I tend to move in a similar way, where I observe the qualities of a principle to refer both to the ground-condition of a process, as well as to the nature of its total manifestation.

But this leaves us with a superstition - namely, that because we can discern large systems, we are entitled to think holistically - as if we would be able to conceive of a true totality with such accuracy as to ascribe a principle to it in the same way as we ascribe it to something like a square, the principle and the substance of which are formulated equally,as a form with four equal corners - Platos preferred ontological approach -
to use the term principle only for those things that are equal in substance and principle; basically, geometry.

But consider this, as a thought experiment, so see how this system is cleft:
Consider the principle of difference as giving rise to symmetry.

Serendipper · August 19, 2017, 8:46am

If nomenclature is the only objection, I can live with that.

Perception doesn’t require consciousness. In fact, consciousness can impede perception

Fixed_Cross · August 19, 2017, 1:40pm

On the money, Serendipper.

I call that basic perception valuing.
As I call less basic (conscious) perception.

And you are right that the latter is less accurate.

James_S_Saint · August 19, 2017, 8:37pm

It IS merely the word:

Sensing and interpreting those senses is required in order to call it “perception”.

No big deal, just find the right word.

Fixed_Cross · August 20, 2017, 1:53am

No. Technically the hierarchy is perception, apperception, interpretation.
Consciousness, in these terms, is attributed to apperception and interpretation, not to perception.

For example, a flower perceives the sun.

Fixed_Cross · August 20, 2017, 1:56am

Thing is, unconscious things only perceive what is of relevance to their structural integrity- what is of value (+/-) to them.
Thats one way of seeing how valuing is prior to even perception, let alone consciousness.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2017, 1:58am

Do you have to update your education in English?

NO. “Perception” is NOT anything a flower can do any more than it can have an opinion of who should be the next US President. Flowers have no senses nor any capacity of interpreting what they sense. They merely react to direct affect.

Learn English if you are going to try to communicate in it.

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 2:00am

Thanks!

Yes, perception has different interpretations, including having insight into difficult situations which requires robust cognitive machinery. I was counting on someone to have the higher form in order to perceive the lower form I meant to convey

Perhaps you could assist? I struggled for the right word and was aware of the proper definitions of perception, but still regarded it as embodying the idea I was trying to communicate and therefore couldn’t resist its gravity. Unfortunately, I’m not the wordsmith I wish I were.

“Recognition” implies a template for comparison, so I couldn’t use that.
“Sensing” seemed too much like a nervous system, so that didn’t capture it either.
“Detection” almost implies intent to find which is too cognitive.

I am at a loss. What is the word for one charge being aware of another charge? Maybe the example is too simplistic. As the most fundamental lifeform, the first order of business is to form structures to perceive the environment and that is somehow accomplished without a nervous system, so it seems we’re back to the atoms because natural reactions are all there is.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2017, 2:04am

Yes, all of that is true. The word that I would use is simply “reaction”. The word “reaction” doesn’t directly imply any conscious intent, yet does imply a response to being affected. When any, literally “any”, entity is affected, it “reacts”. And that includes even light photons, EMR of every sort, subatomic particles, literally every declared physical “entity” (Newton’s 3rd law). And that reaction is what FC wants to call “valuing”.

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 2:22am

How does a sunflower follow the sun?

How does a flower know which way to grow without some perception of gravity?

How does a seed know when it’s warm enough to sprout?

I think I can see what you’re possibly thinking if I picture a ball flying through the air and how it gets from one Planck slice to another is just how the universe unfolds and therefore the ball isn’t perceiving anything just like the flower is reacting along it’s natural path in a mindless way, but then we have to realize that we are the same and there is no such thing as perception… only the process of unfolding natural occurrences.

It almost seems like you’re heading to the conclusion that there are no things or events. Because if a flower follows the sun due natural dumb processes, then I don’t see myself as being much different and the universe is just one big event… the universe is the atom… the indivisible whole… and we are just as much a part of the dumb process as the flower.

Maybe just for the sake of argument we could pretend there are lines in the sand and say the flower somehow perceives the sun then acts accordingly even though we know in the back of our minds that perception itself is just an illusion and construct of imagination. Otherwise, I think, there wouldn’t be anything to talk about.

What do you think?

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 2:26am

Well, if it will makes everyone happy, I’m down with it.

Earlier today, I reacted to a deer through the kitchen window.