Which is First?

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

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

Depends on the ethics.

It is ethical in as far as one has the ethics to act logically.

The only safe source we know about “you” is this:

s_p.jpg
So Leyla is possibly right: “you” are possibly the fifth sock puppet of the one who has no real supporters.

Kdding, Faust. Alf is my sock-puppet.

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.

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:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3JGxj2rvAs[/youtube]

Leftism.

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?!

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 term is “groupie”.

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?

As for him, the term is “delusional overestimation” of himself, alternating with “persecution mania” (don’t know, which is first)

I can tell you that Faust and FC are very, very different people.

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:

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:

–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”.

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

These two are indeed impossible to separate. Ive written on this in some depth as the first steps to explicating value ontology.
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Perception doesn’t require consciousness. In fact, consciousness can impede perception :wink:

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.