"First Metaphysics" by Dennis Kane

[dkane75]

The “equation” given here —>

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.

[James_No_2]

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

[dkane75]

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.

[James_No_2]

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

[dkane75]

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.

[north]

@dkane75

The “equation” given here —>

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.

[James_No_2]

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

[Dunamis]

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

[James_No_2]

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.

James

[Dunamis]

Funny though, I’ve read that one too.

Dunamis

[dkane75]

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.

[Russiantank]

“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…

[detrop]

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.

[Nientilin]

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

[dkane75]

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!

[dkane75]

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.

[Nientilin]

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.

[dkane75]

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!

[detrop]

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.

[James_No_2]

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. I really have read Being and Nothingness.

That Dunamis is a real rogue, though…

Regards,

James