material cause is the boards (mind), vs formal/final cause is the blueprints in the mind, vs efficient cause is the mind(s) (re)placing boards to actualize/maintain blueprint
No mind? No matter. No blueprints (concepts). No actualization (proof of concept). @PerpetuallyCurious … does that answer your question about my epistemology, or do you have a more specific question?
No, this is still metaphysics. Causality is a metaphysical concept. A theory of concepts tells us what a concept is, how it’s formed, how it’s validated, how it is integrated with older knowledge, the relationship between concepts and concretes, etc.
There are three basic theories of concepts: Concepts exist in reality apart from the mind (intrinsic), conepts exist in the mind apart from reality (subjective), and concepts exist in the relationship between the mind and reality, they are mental integrations of percepts (objective).
Consciousness is the only thing that appears, thus there is no underlying object to which it refers. Existence can simply exist in this manner.
The “I am” exists………
(I need to exist to claim that I don’t exist.If I claim that I don’t exist then I am a liar that exists).
……..and is aware of the vibratory nature of the in and out of the moment consciousness states and balances them.
In/out=in/out
The “I am” is not consciousness.
The consciousness experience is vibratory because the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS that exist between all spinning particles at both the macro and micro levels are balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S.
Allow me to rephrase. Each of a mind’s concepts about everything internal and external to it is a rule describing a (at least possible) referent. The mind that subsumes every time has nothing external to it (Matthew 15:11) and also does not need to update its rules/concepts—zero of which are empty of content (all refer…to something it is, or something it subsumes). Nihil is not external — it resolves back to good.
A concept is holding (because wanting) a signified (evident) being/truth. True concepts/rules, unlike empty ones, describe actual referents/beings, though we may lack current and obvious evidence for them (evidence does not change truth value, but if being evident is a requirement of it being true, evidence will not be lacking*). Sometimes we want to hold concepts to protect ourselves from what makes them true.
When you are faced with something that doesn’t follow any of the rules you already know, or something stops following its rule, then you try to figure it out and see where it fits among the rules, or if the rules need adjusting. A rule without a referent is either prophetic, a false hope/fear, or its referent is currently extinct.
The formula for photosynthesis is always essentially true, even if nothing had ever turned electromagnetic radiation into chemical energy, or if all photosynthesis ceases. It is also essentially true after photosynthesis began, and while it is happening, but it takes on existential (action) import in addition to essential import at those times. It always has ontological import as long as it has existential import in at least one time, t (past, present, or future relative to our position in time—this gets complicated when information from distinct moments shares those moments, but set that aside) because ontological import accounts for every time (the whole). Something can be essentially true without having ontological import if it never actualizes in time—like a hope deferred forever (wishful thinking). Some folks hope/wish that evidence of the true meaning of life (beautiful satisfaction) will be deferred forever so that they don’t have to be accountable to others they are blocking from it—completely ignoring (inverse confirmation bias) that it is already evident.
*The truth/being of life (beautiful satisfaction) is not worthy of examining (and we are not capable of examining it) if it is not signified (a good argument/example/member). That we all hunger for it to be true is immediate signification (a good argument/example/member) that we are a priori (that just means it’s part of our tabula rasa… the human condition for the possibility of being…) capable of examining it, and that it is worthy of being examined (argued/dialogued/communicated with…defended with further exemplification… failing prosecution).
These are the justified (efficient), true (material) belief (formal/final) criteria for knowledge (a true concept). As I said, it is divine essentialism.
Back in the early days of my obsession with the is-ought-value fallacy/distinction, and reification (etc)… and the synonymous true, justified belief requirement of knowledge… I encountered an argument that if you define the good, you have abstracted away from the concretization (not just signification in timely action, but omnitemporal being/ground subsuming all timely action) that makes it a true (non-empty) set/category/rule—and therefore (according to that abstraction/reification argument) you don’t need God (concrete being who is always good) in order to do/be/value good. But that argument implies good is not true (lacks being/referent)—is a mere abstraction—an empty concept/intuition/idea hovering over (referent to) nothing (void/abyss/ungrounded)…OR over an always active argument they were selectively ignoring (failing to contact, whether or not intentionally). They wanted to defend a definition of good that rules out contact with reality (rules out its being true/referent)… whether or not it is a correct definition. The absurdity here is that it cannot BE a correct definition unless it is correctly defining or describing actual BEing (grounding all genuinely good action) (we all know fakers, and we all have personal experience with being morally imperfect—none of us contingent beings is the ground).
That argument does not rule out the possibility of a correct definition, and the correct definition does not rule out the necessity of a being that grounds it. Without being that grounds (as referent), there can be no correct definition… of anything. How goofy that argument is in retrospect!
Note: Wanting someone to be true, or not true, has no bearing on whether or not they are in fact true/real, or false/unreal.
However, the universal hunger for meaning, purpose, value, and significance… is a good indicator there is satisfaction to be found for those who seek it, and for those who gave up.
By what means are you aware of this mind that subsumes every time and has nothing external to it? I can imagine this right alongside you but how is what I’m imagining not imaginary?
I know I am alive or dead because I claim things.
Everything in the universe communicates. There has to be an original communication between an eternal source, sink, and signal, because the entire conversation exists whole between the parent category, the child member, and their predicate. You can’t have one of them unless you have all of them, so they could not have developed. They had to have always been that way, or communication would have been impossible.
That answer is the most relevant, but it is not exhaustive.
So, you infer it. What is your starting point?
As all matter vibrates at varying frequencies then of course the cosmos is communicating.
Our binary processing biological machine body senses pick up varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter.
All matter in the cosmos is made up of spinning particles and is held together by balanced attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions.
SPIN SPEED is what regulates these force interactions and thus the amount of electromagnetic energy waves (heat) emitted from a particular matter type.The waves contain unique binary code data that gets picked up and deciphered by the biological machine physical body.
The whole of the cosmos is expanding and contracting all the time because it’s VIBRATING!!!
It isn’t expanding only….which fool came up with that idea.
You can’t explain this stuff with BS mainstream sciences theories which have all now failed anyway.
Descartes, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche walk into a church. The pastor notices they are new and asks them (after his sermon preaching philosophy is from Satan) if they intend to return next week.
Descartes answers, “I think not” and then disappears to another church.
Kierkegaard answers “I do not” and then disappears to Descartes’ church.
Nietzsche answers “I value not” and then disappears to Descartes’ & Kierkegaard’s church.
Red: significance message/function/essence (predicate)
Blue: signaling/means/existence (verb)
Yellow: source&sink/substance/medium (noun)
Exactly. Couldn’t have stated this better meself. I consider it poor form to claim something or some state of affairs doesn’t exist simply because one doesn’t believe in it.
Some atheists have gone so far as to say it isn’t just that they think God doesn’t exist, it’s that they don’t want him to if he does.
They don’t even try to outdo the God concept of the people they disagree with.
Totally lazy thinkers.
This is your starting point?
I have three, actually. They are mutually interdependent. If you have one of them, you must assume all three and deny the other two on pain of rationality (a.k.a. on pain of alienation from reality).
It’s irreducibly complex maximal greatness.
is-ought-value
what-how-why
be-do-end
noun-verb-predicate
substance-action-quality
source/sink-(signaling) sink-signal(ificance)
form/medium-method/praxis-function/purpose
material-efficient-formal/final
true-good-beautiful
yada-yada-yada
The individual should have a STILL mind when interpreting the binary data contained within energy which is vibratory.
All sciences are important but psychology is the most important of all because if you don’t understand psychology and your relationship to it then how can you understand the rest of the sciences?
Having sink in two places and not three, while having source in one place and not three, is bugging me.
