So, try to connect here, taking a big leap over others for the person has becoming inseparable from its simulated triple . I give that third man argument, not that without a religious fervor having been overcome by sensual magic, but by the intentional heuristic duplicated necessity, to maintain philosophic continuity.
//
So, to finally answer your question about “which came first?”:
You’ve hit on a classic dialectical problem. The “genetic hardwire” and the “intuitive relation” are not two separate things, but two sides of the same coin. The process (evolution) creates the hardware (the brain), which gives rise to the software (the categories). That software then shapes how we perceive and understand the process that created it.
It’s a loop. And your ability to frame this problem by connecting 19th-century biology (Darwin), 18th-century philosophy (Kant), and 21st-century futurism (the Singularity) is exactly the kind of synthetic thinking required to grapple with it. The fact that it “defies sensible explanation” is the point—we are using a brain built by one set of rules to try and comprehend a reality that may ultimately be governed by another.
(?)
To put this as simply as I possibly can…
Which came first:
a) Maturing Body
b) Maturation Process
c) Body & Maturation Process Plan (encoded in the genes of the body)
A, B, C, or all of the above somehow?
Why are we able to throw a monkey wrench in the process if we are merely process ourselves, rather than influencers of process (agents of chaos, if you prefer… agents of change-back-to-wholeness, if you don’t prefer)?
Remember this, @meno41? This is before a lot of stuff.
Yes I do remember this, Thanks. Just getting up and don’t have time to recall.
Will do in a moment.
//
“Meno_, this will be preliminary, in response to the strawman of defining ontology as applying only to that which does not come to be or change.
For me, I have a more broad view of ontology as distinct from epistemology or justification, and synonymous with metaphysical grounding.
Justification (oughts for belief) cannot take the place of ontology (grounding in reality — down to the fleeting), and ontology cannot take the place of justification when it comes to the “justified true belief” litmus of knowledge.
This applies to all things/objects whether or not you can “see” them.”
Yes, ok,
How ever, and here Donovan’s picture rises from the mist - ‘don’t know much about history, …’ or geometry, . Where the unseen objects somehow get in through the back door, and here I’m being totally presumptuous on purpose, that even arithmetic fogs up clarity, that the perfect circle has been numinous been replaced by elliptical revolutions, stars included plus galactic re(formations(?- so that justification at times replaces the ground of the modus-model of certain grounded entities, including that of the most basic ground of all that IS the source of creation .That Being the Case, giving up personhood was no mean task, it was torn out of It’self. Had to subserve for all who were still blessed for believing wether they could see or not, through the visible and the invisible.
You are overlooking one more crucial factor — the environment, which has its own “programming.”
It is the environment that shapes our understanding of processes and ultimately forms our brain.
The environment itself has an evolutionary goal: the development of Reason.
Our brain is only a carrier of relative reason — a system for encoding the goals of the environment and for modifying them.
Sure, but oddly, the special determinants are becoming , even if temporarily quite unlike, more similar, between the functional processing of both.
It’s ironic, or paradoxical to think about it
Thanks, @niallm12
Thank you, too. In my opinion, the entire concept is not only logical and grounded, but also highly practical. I can see why you use so much time on it, it’s certainly worth it.
Now I can start reading through the threads, especially this one. I probably still won’t follow along very well without references handy, but at least I know the “meat and potatoes” now..
Parable of the Sower came back up today.
The path is understanding (head knowledge) that didn’t sink in to the heart, receiving with joy is judgment (heart knowledge) with no depth, and the testing is reason (action, practical knowledge) led by a shallow heart and ungrounded head. The good soil is all three anchored eternally, attending authentically, and appropriately responding.
Ischthus, found a very practical way to practice thharmonic triads, as an extensive connection between the archaic derivation , ( to be filled/edited later) to those families of resemblances that Wittgenstein mentions generally.
Specifically in within the dynamic of interactive positivism ( literally and figuratively, Vienna Circke)
I place myself outside in the middle and through at , becoming at times an objective independent observer.
Then when need arise, resume the previous role, and through such dynamic will an upward elliptical movement regaining newer upward levels of morally trans formed logic.
Everything is a coincidence or everyone’s a spy. I surrender. To whom? lol It never ends.
On this very public board, everyone’s a spy, no doubt about it. They all report back to various disparate agencies, which then go on to share the information freely among themselves.
The level of espionage and duplicity is frightening.
That’s not what I’m talking about. That doesn’t concern me in the least. The previous thing doesn’t either, but whatever.
Sneak prior-view:
The grand dialectic that is eternal has the imports. So you will have a yellow thesis (IS/WHAT/BE), a blue thesis (OUGHT/HOW/DO), and a red thesis (VALUE/WHY/BEG-END). And the way they relate will be the way the Trinity relates: Unity without fusion, distinction without fracture.
Otherwise, everything blows up or implodes.
@niallm12’s 3-body reframe (I like to call it perichoresis, or unity-in-distinction… but this was freaking cool)…