the conclusion at the present point is the possibility of each thesis simultaneously, in as far as before the decision is made about the answer the question exists to be asked because it is either true or false, and the present fact is that it remains unknown until it is answered, both outcomes equally possible as they are both undetermined as the answer to the question. One enters this process only knowing that it is a fact that the outcome of the relationship will have to be one or the other, as both possibilities only exist as one approaches oneās answer, eventually the dialectic relationship will end at one state and become a fact. Here, there are only two basic outcomes, yes or true, no or false, obviously. But in the process of becoming conscious of the question there is a moment when there are no facts about the final state of the outcome.
What is that? Did i write that nonsense? Omg how embarrassing. That looks like something one of the austic kids at PN would write. I canāt make heads or tails of it. I must have been reading Hegel cliffnotes and thought I was a dialectical materialist or something.
Yeah, you wrote it. You used to spell becoming with two āmās, btw.
Anyway. Anyone who is new to your terminology can google: āTell me the difference between the Hegelian dialectic and Marxās dialectical materialismā.
What struck me about the quote in the OP is it takes the approach of āWhat if what certain people say about quantum mechanics creating reality in the moment was true? How do we arrive at truth if reality is constructed and therefore, as soon as you think youāve grasped it, it has changedāand that very grasping changes it?ā
It reminds me that we build a certain aspect of reality with our choices in co-creativity with each other (all contingent beings considered and subsumedā¦ in necessary Being/Substance). But we are grasping by expressing (sometimes without knowing we are doing it) ā¦eternal essence/quality. ā¦sometimes badly, which provides the shading that emphasizes whatās missing. Attempts to manufacture it rather than drawing from the eternal source never satisfy.
How weird is it that our creative input has always been concurredā¦ in a way (from the perspective of the whole) is baked in, and so isnāt really additionalā¦ but a dialectic approach to the whole?
But you donāt really stand by those words, so. Never mind.
If you have a few atoms in a box it is a quantum soup of probabilities, and the atoms do not traditionally exist until you measure it. On the large scale though, reality exists. When people say ātruthā, they mean something on a large scale. For example if you stand on a train tracks and a train runs you over, the train is truth. The person telling you that the train is running you over is telling the truth.
But once there are enough atoms in a system it functions like a solid state system where things are fundamentally true or false: the systems retain their shape and inertia consistently.
The thing I get a little stuck on isā¦yeah thereās either a fact or there is not a fact, but there can be more than one fact/option instantiating simultaneously. Butā¦as long as all the options donāt violate the golden rule, they all express the eternal/whole. A dialectic process doesnāt create anything new (that was a misrepresentation presented to me the first time I heard about it in a āscholarlyā setting)āit sands away our misunderstandings/gropings down/up to the truth of what really matters.
After I wrote this^, I was trying to think of it in a more generous/charitable way, like in the light of this:
ā¦ but still the way it was presented made it look like every dialectical movement was progress. Like devolution away from progress was impossible.
First of all, progress implies an end. Second of all, if devolution is impossible, neither is progress.
So without an end that subsumes (conserves/preserves) both progress and devolution (ultimately: choice), there IS no end. I know that sounds kind of like I just ended where I started. It is what it is.
Because when you look at ways of resolving conflict, people can want different things that donāt necessarily conflict with each other.
You might think that when you describe some physical circumstance that youāve described the whole story. But if the physical circumstance would not have happened unless the differing wants were happening, then you canāt describe the whole story without describing the differing wants. So the physical circumstance looks like one thing when the whole story shows it to be two different things āor at least two different things. Itās as many different things as there are wanters (STAKEholders) and things they want (STAKES) that are instantiated in that physical happeningā¦ EVEN IF they want the same thing. (Is that want in the image of each otherās wants or a different ā¦originalā¦ want altogether? Hysterical laughter!)
Answering my own question (thanks, futureone, Iāll take this)ā¦ Keep in mind that even if someone identifies with a certain group, their own life experiences may determine how they live their group membership. In other words, they will individually express essence in their own unique way, even if their group is known (stereotyped, type-casted) to express essence a certain different way. However, the uniqueness (diversity) of a groupās individualsā expressions will be in alignment to the extent all stakeholders involved share a common will that obeys a common (hopefully person=person) order over their passions/priorities (which is not to say complete annihilation of passion)ā¦ United we rise (to match the original triunity, wittingly or un), divided we fall.
(looky loos are bad faith stakeholders or intentionally bad actorsā¦ though they may fancy themselves devilās/wolfās/monsterās advocatesā¦ if their faces stick that way and they never step out of characterā¦ but they can learn to love being a proper advocate the exact same wayā¦ given the proper motivation)
Oh, cool, itās the Creative Discovery thread. Now, you just know that everyone loves you in the Creative Discovery thread. You feel perfectly safe, at peace, able to express yourself as the degenerate that you are around people who will lavish you with open arms, ribbons, and trophies. Is this one of those Love Ontology seminars that apastakolopicus or whatever his name is, is always warning me about?
