So. When the microscope scrolls in on bodies it’s called chemistry. When a telescope scrolls in on bodies it’s called astronomy. I’m not sure what that makes physics…the whole shebang?
But my question is, at a certain level of scrolling you can see certain bodies. If you scroll in further you can see certain other bodies “within” the first set of bodies.
Are there names for the levels at which bodies exist and can be seen at that level of scrolling? A taxonomy of the levels. I believe these are called levels of magnification or maybe resolution…
…and we’re going beyond just talking about being able to see an object with more clarity at different levels of magnification.
Explainer: microscopeworld.com/t-micro … mages.aspx
There are bodies that you can’t see if you’re using a certain level of magnification in order to see what you’re seeing. That’s why you need microscopes for some levels and telescopes for other levels — because of the level we’re at. Is there a name for the level we are at that I guess you would call the naked eye? What is our magnification? Or resolution? Or definition?
If you treat the naked eye as a point of origin, like a model fractal starting point, and you draw an eye at that point, then draw an icon representative of the bodies the naked eye can’t see to its right (with telescopes) and to its left (with microscopes), and let the icons be like Russian nesting dolls, … go inside the eye and a DNA molecule inside it, and (when going out from the eye) stay local with the telescope with the eye as starting point.
Some things to meditate on as you order the scale/gradation. Note this does not go inside the eye or DNA…scrolls by instead of in:
I dunno, but. Isn’t it kind of funny that you can’t really draw a conclusion without two premises and that kind of makes a triangle and that’s the symbol for a conclusion?
So it’s kind of like…if you wanna make a point you have to have three proto-points. It’s not like you make a point … it’s like you realize a point … and it’s three points. So it’s like you’re connecting the dots but it’s not a dot it’s a shape … but it’s not circular.
so when you interpret, when you connect the dots, when you decode, you’re not arriving at something new. You’re putting something together that was already there. You’re… re-membering it.
And if you can derive everything else you know from some basic principles that also consist of at least three proto-points. Well… that’s a fractalicious structure.
About the science being well known, one (you have to know the whole to really say you know something well…and the whole is not “pure” in the pure math “sense” of the word pure), and about the newness of anything that is finished, depending on the definition of new.
Yea… but I know how to read, research, and comprehend… which I did, so I got up-to-speed, and almost instantaneously in-fact… coz it ain’t exactly rocket-science, is it.
I have the question in the OP & at least one reply because of all the little bits and pieces that stuck in my brain, but I wasn’t even looking for …I just ran across them or vice versa.
I haven’t read this fully because I’m exhausted, but folks who knew Thin Edge & She™ & de’trop & Malbus, etc., may enjoy this flashbback. About a month later my brain popped: docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Fs6Qf … eh0j3z3FUw
I will return to talk about concrete/abstract etc, but am job hunting & stuff so hard to bla bla bla.
So we need some disambiguation. Notice it starts & ends red, has two blues in the middle, and has yellow between the reds and blues—butterfly or mirror image on purpose… you can match the colors, but I need flayed to trigger thoughts correctly for now. Scan for concrete/abstract…they could both appear much more than they do…mentally insert wherever it applies.
red: function (fulfill hunger to love other as self) THE REASON/POINT FOR REASON/KNOWLEDGE…as long as meets self=other, okay to abstract imaginatively without limit (against such things there is no law)…but the abstraction builds off the concrete and is still part of concrete experience the more it is thought/applied. Like flying needs a universe.
yellow: material form (stamped in body/mind with having loved other as self)
material of mind is spiritual matter
material of body is natural matter
CONFIGURED VIRTUE/CHARACTER (ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE)
blue: performance of function (acts of loving other as self)
REASON IN ORDER TO APPLY, not off into space
another way:
blue: Justified (defined, supported, evident with good reasons/actions)
yellow: True (concrete…it sticks…you find it in reality)
red: Trust-Belief (it matters enough to remember/hold it) … acceptance … reception … embrace … love … trust (not merely intellectual) (gut knowledge: true until proven false) (trust until violated)
So basically Kierkegaard, etc, is right that you know nothing unless you live/act in it. if it is just head knowledge and abstract to you, you don’t really know anything about it. You need hands-on experience…applied. That’s why I think philosophy & science belong together.
Also: Obviously we’re not going to be able to experience the whole unless we’re omniscient and omnipresent (& omnibenevolent… aka omnipotent) but because we are made in the image of the whole and can experience what it’s like to be who we are, then we can experience a smidgen of the whole just by a familiarity with the joy at fullest known level of functioning, or (in shadow) the emptiness at lowest known level of dysfunction. Nothing abstract about any of that.
