Something Instead of Nothing

On the other hand, what can the minds of mere mortals on this one particular planet awash in the vastness of what may well be a multiverse, know about an ontological explanation for existence itself?

And I have yet to come across an argument that even pins down definitively if what we do think we know is not that which we could only have ever thought we knew.

Then back to the autonomous aliens noting that while we think we are capable of doing this of our own free will, we could never have not done it. Human logic in a wholly determined segment of the universe being no less an inherent toppling over of matter. As though it were just another agglomeration of dominos set up by whatever can be known [ultimately] about the ontological nature of existence.

Actually, what I am trying to do here is to take yet another “general description” like this one out into the world of actual human interactions.

For example:

Given what is in fact unfolding now in, say, the Trump scandals, how do we determine conclusively whether what we think about the choices being made here are 1] being intertwined in a universe as we imagine it [autonomously] to be or 2] that the universe as it actually is, is, instead, compelling us to think what we do.

My connundrum here is that I – “I” – have no definitive capacity to know for sure which one it is. Then I can only confront the arguments of those who think otherwise.

Well, how can there be any contradictions at all in a wholly determined universe? If what we believe about reasonable thoughts is only that which we were ever able to believe about them then that is wholly in sync with those alleged immutable laws of matter.

But even if we can freely choose to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable thoughts, would we not have to take this back to all that can be known about existence itself? An existence in other words that includes human autonomy.

Or is that actually unimaginable? Like speaking of human autonomy in a world where God does exist and He is omniscient.

How can there be immutable laws of matter in a universe where matter has evolved into minds able to choose freely to think otherwise? Able to think things that are not in fact true. Now that is some really, really strange matter. But: is that what human consciousness has in fact come to be?

But here I am back to my own mind swirling and whirling about – unable to anchor itself to anything definitive.

We think only as we are compelled to in a universe consisting of matter only at it is compelled to be. “Reason” is just a word human minds were compelled to invent in order to explain those aspects of existence it notes to be highly correlated. But that is not the same as coming to grips with the actual cause and effect forces that encompass existence itself.

Right?

Me too.

Yup… that’s your problem, looking for something definitive.
I recommend instead you look for something practical…

So, you are either actually free to judge my problem, or you were never “for all practical purposes” free to judge it at all other than as you did.

And my problem is that, of my own volition, I fail to recognize that I can look for something more practical.

Let’s just leave it at that, okay?

All that is definitive is the ring of power.

Either you own it or you don’t.

This ring is the connection of ones self awareness to ones actual existence.

I previously called it self valuing logic, or VO.

Or described in another basic form:

The relation between causa sui and sui generis.

Or extended to Sartre, the relationship between for itself and in itself

: Being-in-itself is concrete, lacks the ability to change, and is unaware of itself. Being-for-itself is conscious of its own consciousness but is also incomplete. For Sartre, this undefined, nondetermined nature is what defines man.

From ’ Being and Nothingness’ , Sartre

All I can do with this is to [once again] suggest that we bring VO down out of this world of words [awash in “definitional logic”] and situate it out in any particular context of his choosing.

One in which men and women choose particular behaviors for particular reasons.

Then examine his take on how this “ring of power” is situated in his take on why there is something instead of nothing, why it is this something and not another, and how it all is encompassed in his take on the origins of existence itself.

And let’s assume that we do in fact have access to some measure of autonomy.

Same here.

Choose a particular context in which actual flesh and blood human beings interact and bring Sartre’s assumptions down into it.

What “for all practical purposes” do you suppose that he is telling us here about the pour-soi and the en-soi?

And, in a wholly determined universe, could a distinction such as this even be made? Or, if made, made only because one could never not make it?

Some more speculation: youtu.be/wI0T9-1CbeQ

This take on the question “why something instead of nothing?” starts out by noting the age old distinction made between the God and the No God folks. The God folks explain the existence of something “logically” through God. It’s the only reasonable explanation that there is.

But then the No God folks point out that if something and not nothing includes God this immediately begs the question, “who or what created God?”

Here he notes that the God folks then abandon “logic” for “magic”. God, they tell us, is the one exception. He does not need a creator or a creation. He just is.

Next, he offers a quote from JBS Halding: “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

And, in this universe, and on this planet, matter has evolved into minds able to conjure up any number of really tough “metaphysical questions”. Philosophical and scientific quandaries such that the tools at our disposal [logic, rational thought, empirical observation etc.] only take us so far in attempts to provide answers.

Eventually we are just stuck with accepting the “queer” parts that seem beyond our grasp.

And “something and not nothing” clearly falls within the parameters of that. Our rational thinking tells us that everything in the universe had a beginning. And then some insist that this beginning can be explained [will be explained] once we completely understand that beginning – the Big Bang.

And that this will somehow include the part before it. Or explain why there was no part before it.

And, however queer that might seem, isn’t the idea that existence has always been around queerer still? So, we have to take that “leap” to the explanation that seems the least queer to us “here and now”.

Knowing that we can never really be certain of what new information and knowledge and ideas might come along to change our minds.

Or if even that is within capacity to embody autonomously.

As the different nexus appear as insoluable in some instances, and at that level, an existential jump based on extremely small differences, becomes a power issue which is almost an unconscious endeavor this sub consciousness becomes like an auto pilot.

I mean, basically, this why I almost never respond to the points that you raise. For all I know, sure, this may well be a brilliant observation. But what on earth does it have to do with “choosing a particular context in which actual flesh and blood human beings interact…and then bringing Sartre’s assumptions down into it.”

As that relates to why there is something instead of nothing in a world where we may or may not possess autonomous minds.

What “existential jump” based on what “extremely small differences” relating to what actual context in which human beings choose different [and sometimes conflicting] behaviors?

And in a wholly determined universe it would seem that even Nietzsche’s “will to power” – embodied either consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously – might be described as on “auto-pilot” given that it can only ever be in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.

I was not particularising within the context you bring it down to earth,because that is impossible, given that description, with which I sense agreement.

Partixularising is the contextual background, where a reductive effect takes place, I.e, from IO valuation, to basic general evaluation based on the very basic ontological necessity, that exists between particularization/differentiation and identification/integration of variables.

(Since values are variable as they are conflicting

The levels of convertibilitu of values are mostly automatic and deterministic at that level, hence the unconsciousness of any effort for an existential leap.

If I had to spell out every variable in this progression, it way undermine the fact that I am basically with you here.

But again, since You are currently taking a positivist -linguistic bases , while extolling the contrary, does not change communication to a degree that would guaranty a mutual communication. However I still keep tryiing grather then point to a one way flow of information exchange, as brilliant or, otherwise it may appear/ to .be.

As far as the will to power is concerned, he is taking a position an-infinity, away from absurdity, where repetition on an approach hung absolute(Kierkegaard) will start to approximate an exit , but on cosmogical and not particular ground. What that particular or particle is is a matter of philosophical bias, not in a something or nothongr bounded bounded universe but in a something and nothing universe.

Okay, that’s fair enough. But in my view Jacob is particularly adept at coming in here and making these ponderous observations that appear to be intellectually weighty, but only [in my view] up in the clouds of abstraction.

I still have no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.

And now this from him: “All that is definitive is the ring of power.”

Right.

But what do you mean by impossible here? There are clearly things that are in fact possible in regard to human interactions. Things that we can agree are true for all of us.

And while we do not appear capable of linking our own narratives to an understanding of existence itself, that never stops folks interested in philosophy from giving it their best shot. And do we ever really know which members here might be thinking about all this in a way that never really occured to us? Besides, if it stops being of interest to someone, they can always just cease and desist from coming here.

Again, this might be an extraordinary insight. But I have absolutely no idea what “on earth” it means. Though, sure, if that part is of little or no interest to you, you can always find others here who are willing to trade “technically sophisticated” “general description” “scholastic assessments” with you.

But it always just seems to be so much mental masturbation to me. A ceaseless attempt to coincide conflicting renditions of “definitional logic” so that everyone is at least absolutely certain that they agree on what the words mean.

Will Durant’s “epistemologists” in other words.

What I am is someone who is interested in taking observations like this out into the world of actual social, political and economic interactions. And then in exploring how “for all practical purposes” they are relevant to the lives that we live.

[b]What on earth do you suppose the evolution of human speech and language is really all about? In other words, what is it that speech and language is intended to communicate?

First of course words that facilitate our actual subsistence itself. We can’t be philosophers unless and until we are able feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, defend ourselves, reproduce ourselves.

And then words that sustain all the things that we are able to want.

Only after all that can the very few focus on those words that revolve around what we call “the big questions” in philosophy.[/b]

The stuff that is the aim of this thread.

So, what I do is attempt to connect the dots between what we think we know about the nature of human speech and language, about the “big questions”, and how that might be relevant to the behaviors that we choose in the course of living our lives.

As that relates to the question, “how ought one to live”?

Imbigious, most matters of this kind can be solved by reduction, instead of inducing them by a positive demonstration. Positive philosophy is more linked to material demonstration s, of the here and now. This You MUST agree because they are the linkage of the beginning and the very end of your summation.

The basic questions or rather, sub questions can flow out of this basic reduction from most complex: vis. ‘induced’, toward the most ‘reduced’.

The point at which they become cognitively upheld on any basis , which is the epoche, or presentation/re-presentation of a tie-in between the materialist and the immaterialiat position, where those two terms are logically tied to ea h other, as Kantianism tried to do.

This too, is or should be self exemplary.

The exemplary-ness of such, was indeed upheld by Sartre, by his invocation in Being AND Nothingness, to which You yourself subscribed to.(see above)

That quote underlines obviously what is at stake, and that is where we can get into trouble. And did! Now before going further, hoping that so far everything seems in order upon agreeing upon them, I will take a pause before getting into theater of Your particular objections. Which are noted in between Jacob’s description s and your parting shot at the end about a though about how one ought to live.

“no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.”

The problem with VO , as you define conflicting values, of as Sartre explained it minimally above, is, that the ‘for itself’ is conscious of Its own values, but always incomplete. For, particular applications always revolve around the in-situ problem., whereas I’m it’self is not conscious of his own level of his absolute conviction.

This is where the cusp of the argument falls down.Why? The real reason is based on the definition of what DOUBT , the concept, revolves around. Particularization , sure, will be easily shown to be the basis of the failure in exemplifying the moral problem of abortion.

However, this doubt, or variable probability for setting a credible ethical standard is insufficient in that effort, and prone to a reduction into an absurdity. (Epoche stops this unreasonably dubious descent, invoking Kant’s famous categorical imperative. Now arguments cone in called ‘Naturalustic Fallacy’ to logically declare the artificiality, of the conceptual fragmentation of further logical reduction into holding to the notion of ‘absolute Doubt’ ( The same pivotal Doupt’ that Descartes finally cracked. It cracked , because he invoked the idea of a demonic concept, the Evil Genious to overcome God’s benefiscience. Descartes was a Catholic within. The folds of the Church, hence his Evil Genius is a Temptor, who has to be literally understood at face value. This is the problem before Nietzhe cracked or, by the power of The Ring, an eta when, before redemption, pre-logical essences played with the rules of existence.

Not to invoke or induce these archytipical Beings into the argument is a mistake, since they are mostly part and parcel of the archytipical down to earth ideas about the mind, about its functions and how they relate to how we presently act morally, sometimes in defiance to the gods, because everyone assumes they ’ died’

But did they?

Before going on into Eyer, whose argument reduces behavior into an absurd argumentative relations in relation of how we may think about them, lets take another pause, before trying to inquire of how we, as everyday practical men do, or should apply the more inclusive adaptations of modern doubt, into the necessity of its consciously developed mutation.
We can not , for if we go further than the materialhete and now connotation of the doubt enveloping us, we immediately negate that thought by short cutting it, in defense of our own rational material psyche.

I don’t even know how suçcesful this demonstration was, but certainly, if I was a young girl living in Saudi Arabia, where denial of parent’s attitudes could result result in my death, I would certainly think twice before becoming pregnant, and if I did, I would certainly see it fit to do anything to abort a child.

Now I am hoping that leaving the rest of the argument would reduce it to a misunderstandible standard, so it is up to You to connect the dots between the conscious conscious and the sub/unconscious unconscious variables.

You can’t argue for the rightness or wrongness or the workings of the above exampled Saudi young girl on her level of understanding, because the connections have not been. Completely installed between what right and wrong entail, suppose You were her parent, counselor, or undertaker would think.

You actually would need to crack the code which would have actual bearing on an absolute sense of how all these people’s sense is coming from. Is it sub conscious or conscious source which predicted their mode of thought, or is a totally predetermined mind excluding all possibilities will react without thinking of any other possibilities and their consequences?

This is story is based on an actual murder case by the parents of a Saudi girl living in New York City.

Finally , the -‘Nothing’ that you are reluctant to agree with as the basis of solving problems involving values, is not nothing , as you are attempting to define, but a some-thing, as minimally uses as per existence. There really is no ‘absolute nothingness’ after all in any sense of the word, no matter how hard you are trying that absolute sense of Being per material.

The contradictory attempt at proof is very obvious.

Again, the only thing that interrest me regarding intellectual contraptions of this sort is their relevance to the lives that we actually live.

So, why don’t we just conclude that I refuse to be a “serious philosopher” and leave it at that.

There is no real difference between a serious philosopher and one who isn’t, as long as one is thinking about what thoughts occur between what one sees and hears, as a qualifier for belonging to that art of philosophy.

That you see no point beyond appreciating that process of thought that You consider as practical philosophy, does not disconnect You from the implications of its seriousness, while at the same time does not induce others reading You within considering those implications.

It does make for more sense to become more practically minded, as in our case, having come to practically identical positions.

But at times it makes sense for the sake of more connections, not to completely exclude all else.

Otherwise, there appears no issue, except the archaic contrariness, of left behind truncations but even then, the conflicting ideas can at least be written down as problematic to the degree of becoming paradoxical.

To not to pre-empty Your question , following this one, An incident very much like this one occurred in NY City, around 10 years ago, when the parents did murder their daughter, ( both from Saudi Arabia,) they were arrested and used their cultural heritage as defense, which the Judge rejected on grounds of their legal obligations to their adopted country, and were duly executed)

In other words, given that, historically and culturally, this girl was adventitiously “thrown” at birth into a nation that prescribes and proscribes particular behaviors relating to, among other things, gender and sexuality and religious values and abortion, her own values are shaped and molded as a child to be in sync with them.

And this is in sync with my own speculation that individual values are derived existentially from the actual lives that we live. The manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

So, how would VO, with its “ring of power” respond to that? How do you respond to it?

Taking this…

[b]What on earth do you suppose the evolution of human speech and language is really all about? In other words, what is it that speech and language is intended to communicate?

First of course words that facilitate our actual subsistence itself. We can’t be philosophers unless and until we are able feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, defend ourselves, reproduce ourselves.

And then words that sustain all the things that we are able to want.

Only after all that can the very few focus on those words that revolve around what we call “the big questions” in philosophy. [/b]

…into account.

But…

Suppose the child’s parents were somehow able to leave Saudi Arabia and raise their daughter in, say, America? They left because they rejected embracing the religious values the state demanded of its citizens. Instead, they raised their daughter to believe that abortion was the right of all women to choose.

In other words, conflicting goods. In Saudi Arabia abortion is bad, immoral, a sin against God. In America, some believe that as well. But others do not. So, as an advocate of VO, how would Jacob go about describing these conflicting values; and, using the ring of power, how might he differentiate justified and unjustified behaviors?

How about you?

Note to Jacob:

So, does this make sense to you? Is there an “absolute nothingness” equivalent in VO?

And, just out of curiosity, what do you imagine will become of you – your own particular “I” – after you die? Does the ring of power tumble over into the abyss with it?

Is there anything in the way of a posthumous VO?