Which is First?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:30 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Leyla wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:When I opened this thread ...

So "Faust" is another account of yours?
That makes five now, as far as I know. Well, if one can't get any real supporters ...


When he opened this thread in a window...

You are a genius.
I mean I assume these other people are reasonably intelligent, and that my sentence was EXTREMELY complicated.

Yeah, Im Faust.
Heres where I split up into two persons.



Im enjoying the fact that I have 50 posters circling me purely based on how cool I am to be around - none of them even reads my posts. They just want to be close, to think about my person.

It does distract from the topic, but hey, I already resolved it.
For those who are intelligent but still have trouble doing the work:



Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
- 1: we should act logically.

Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
- 2: now we can reason.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
- 3: now we can apply reason to formulate a statement.

Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
- 4: now we try for a statement that pertains to something.

Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.
- 5: now we can apply our statement to our making of the statement. Now, we can begin to philosophize.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:02 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Leyla wrote:So "Faust" is another account of yours?
That makes five now, as far as I know. Well, if one can't get any real supporters ...


When he opened this thread in a window...

You are a genius.
I mean I assume these other people are reasonably intelligent, and that my sentence was EXTREMELY complicated.


I must admit that at first glance, I thought you meant "when I posted in this thread for the first time in almost six years", but then I read the words "had done", and knew that couldn't be the case. Logically.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:03 am

Does ethics not pertain to how we should act morally rather than logically
Acting logically is not always ethical so logic cannot be the basis for ethics
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:54 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Does ethics not pertain to how we should act morally rather than logically
Acting logically is not always ethical so logic cannot be the basis for ethics

Logic does not pertain to behavior. Logic only applies to language and thought structure. You are thinking of people who behave inconsiderately out of self interest. IF someone has only the betterment of their self as a goal and rationally pursue that goal, they can be seriously unethical. Some people call that "being too logical", but that is a misuse of the term.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:23 am

James wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Does ethics not pertain to how we should act morally rather than logically
Acting logically is not always ethical so logic cannot be the basis for ethics

Logic does not pertain to behavior. Logic only applies to language and thought structure. You are thinking of people who behave inconsiderately
out of self interest. IF someone has only the betterment of their self as a goal and rationally pursue that goal they can be seriously unethical
Some people call that being too logical but that is a misuse of the term

I think a better term would be rational because that pertains to behaviour whereas logic pertains to thinking like you said
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:55 pm

Yeah, Im Faust.
Heres where I split up into two persons.


Why this never made it to Cannes, I will never know.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16901
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:08 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Does ethics not pertain to how we should act morally rather than logically

Depends on the ethics.

Acting logically is not always ethical so logic cannot be the basis for ethics

It is ethical in as far as one has the ethics to act logically.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Alf » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:04 pm

Faust wrote:
Yeah, Im Faust.
Heres where I split up into two persons.

Why this never made it to Can, I will never know.

The only safe source we know about "you" is this:

s_p.jpg
s_p.jpg (18.1 KiB) Viewed 523 times

So Leyla is possibly right: "you" are possibly the fifth sock puppet of the one who has no real supporters.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:13 pm

Kdding, Faust. Alf is my sock-puppet.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:14 pm

Its true I have no followers though.
I have friends, fellow philosophers.

And a whole shitload of trolls, but I agree that these can't be seen as followers, as they don't care about my philosophy, only about me.
Or are those actually what one calls followers?

Hm.

On the fence.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:19 pm

Wel, crap. Logic forces me to regard my trolls as my followers.
They follow me from thread to thread, and post underneath my posts wherever I make them.

Their voice in my life:

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:23 pm

Faust wrote:
Yeah, Im Faust.
Heres where I split up into two persons.


Why this never made it to Cannes, I will never know.

Leftism.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:24 pm

Funny that Fixed Cross does seem to be more popular than Satyr these days. I mean, formerly Satyr was the one known for his many sock-puppets, and suspected of having even more.

Wait, could this mean Alf and Leyla are not Satyr's sock-puppets?!
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:31 pm

Funny indeed.

Also my ascribed sock puppets are getting to be of notably higher status.
Im honoured that I am considered capable of inventing Fausts mind and persona.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:44 pm

The term is "groupie".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Alf » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:06 pm

I was only talking about the fact that we know nearly nothing about the ILP member "Faust". Who really knows more than this about "Faust"; username, avatar, numbers of posts, registration date, post content, pm-content?
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Leyla » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:08 pm

James S Saint wrote:The term is "groupie".

As for him, the term is "delusional overestimation" of himself, alternating with "persecution mania" (don't know, which is first)
User avatar
Leyla
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:58 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:11 pm

Alf wrote:I was only talking about the fact that we know nearly nothing about the ILP member "Faust". Who really knows more than this about "Faust"; username, avatar, numbers of posts, registration date, post content, pm-content?

I can tell you that Faust and FC are very, very different people.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Xunzian » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:24 am

I'm not really sure what the initial "seed" is, does it matter? Substance and function is an iterative and mutually reinforcing process and we're right in the middle of it. When you're having a drink, what is first? The liquid you are drinking? The vessel containing what you are drinking? The hands that pick up what you are drinking? The eyes that see it so you can pick it up? The nose that smells it and the mouth that tastes it? The body that needs it? The totality of these things together?

Does it matter? A chopped off hand in the desert isn't picking up a drink. Liquid can exist qua liquid without need of being drank. Etc.

What's most important? Well, what question are you asking? Ontology and epistemology are complimentary in that way.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:

Xiong Shili wrote:The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. [...] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word "principle" is a general term for both substance and function, whereas "material force" refers only to function. When the meaning of the word "material force" was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[...]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.


Feng Youlan wrote:Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[...]

In our system we can still say that "the principle is one but its manifestations are many." But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .


Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan's "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy."
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming wrote:We have already suggested that man's structure of being and man's process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming's perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man's being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.


--Subjective and Ontological Reality -- An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming's Mode of Thinking.

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a "given structure" we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the "substance" Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan's more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren't taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as "principle".
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10462
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:52 pm

Xunzian wrote:I'm not really sure what the initial "seed" is, does it matter? Substance and function is an iterative and mutually reinforcing process and we're right in the middle of it. When you're having a drink, what is first? The liquid you are drinking? The vessel containing what you are drinking? The hands that pick up what you are drinking? The eyes that see it so you can pick it up? The nose that smells it and the mouth that tastes it? The body that needs it? The totality of these things together?

The liquid we are drinking is first. We are made of that liquid. Or thirst is a function of us already being that liquid.

Does it matter? A chopped off hand in the desert isn't picking up a drink. Liquid can exist qua liquid without need of being drank. Etc.

What's most important? Well, what question are you asking? Ontology and epistemology are complimentary in that way.

These two are indeed impossible to separate. Ive written on this in some depth as the first steps to explicating value ontology.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1-ontology

But logic and ethics are not included in that same dynamic. They form a different aggregate together.
They are, as I see it, prior to it the pair of "what might knowledge be" (epistemology) is and "what might be known" (ontology).
Epistemology and ontology are both radically complex, demand much to be established beforehand.
Phenomenology is even more complex, as it requires these two as well as the stream of observations that is to be modelled into the two -
that all relies on logic, which relies on the choice of adhering to logic, which is a selection of a standard, which is ethics.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:




Xiong Shili wrote:The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. [...] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word "principle" is a general term for both substance and function, whereas "material force" refers only to function. When the meaning of the word "material force" was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[...]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.

Thanks for posting.
Indeed it is impossible to discern principle from the substance it brings about -
the Principe is the acting consistency (in the sense of being-consistent), the substance is the passive consistency (as being accumulation of a consistent type)
in physics, we have the principle of gravitation which can not be separated from the principle of mass, and yet they are different things.

Feng Youlan wrote:Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[...]

In our system we can still say that "the principle is one but its manifestations are many." But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .

I don't like how this guy taks about principle, he links it to class, category. I don't think that is ultimately very accurate.
I prefer the notion of principles that give rise to phenomena, as the Chinese philosophers that I do know (all of them through martial arts) tend to work by.

Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan's "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy."
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming wrote:We have already suggested that man's structure of being and man's process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming's perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man's being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.


--Subjective and Ontological Reality -- An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming's Mode of Thinking.

A qualifier: a structure is itself the result of a process.
A structure is thus a segment of a larger process, which itself is processed within that larger process;

Might we say that structure is a framework for specific type of process?

"The World In Its Totality" if such a phrase isn't nonsensical, is simply process - there is no definitive structure to it
Structures emerge in the generality of process, to be processed further -
into what, though?

Processing toward what?
What is the ground of the "should" in Weimings thought?

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a "given structure" we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the "substance" Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan's more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren't taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as "principle".

Right. I tend to move in a similar way, where I observe the qualities of a principle to refer both to the ground-condition of a process, as well as to the nature of its total manifestation.

But this leaves us with a superstition - namely, that because we can discern large systems, we are entitled to think holistically - as if we would be able to conceive of a true totality with such accuracy as to ascribe a principle to it in the same way as we ascribe it to something like a square, the principle and the substance of which are formulated equally,as a form with four equal corners - Platos preferred ontological approach -
to use the term principle only for those things that are equal in substance and principle; basically, geometry.

But consider this, as a thought experiment, so see how this system is cleft:
Consider the principle of difference as giving rise to symmetry.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:46 am

James S Saint wrote:
Serendipper wrote:A simple organism can perceive (what is).

Perception requires innate, non-lingual logic ("what I see is what is there").

Serendipper wrote:Even an atom can perceive the presence of charge and react without neural processing.

Perception requires a degree of consciousness (and vsvrsa). Natural law reactions are not perceptions.


If nomenclature is the only objection, I can live with that.

Perception doesn't require consciousness. In fact, consciousness can impede perception ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:40 pm

On the money, Serendipper.

I call that basic perception valuing.
As I call less basic (conscious) perception.

And you are right that the latter is less accurate.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:37 pm

Serendipper wrote:If nomenclature is the only objection, I can live with that.

Perception doesn't require consciousness. In fact, consciousness can impede perception ;)

It IS merely the word:
per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: perception; plural noun: perceptions

    1 the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
      "the normal limits to human perception"
      the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
      "the perception of pain"
      synonyms: recognition, awareness, consciousness, appreciation, realization, knowledge, grasp, understanding, comprehension, apprehension; formalcognizance
      "our perception of our own limitations"
    2 a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.

Sensing and interpreting those senses is required in order to call it "perception".

No big deal, just find the right word.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:53 am

No. Technically the hierarchy is perception, apperception, interpretation.
Consciousness, in these terms, is attributed to apperception and interpretation, not to perception.

For example, a flower perceives the sun.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:56 am

Thing is, unconscious things only perceive what is of relevance to their structural integrity- what is of value (+/-) to them.
Thats one way of seeing how valuing is prior to even perception, let alone consciousness.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users