When he has hidden it very well and it is one of a kind.
How could he know that it is totally impossible for anyone to ever find it (or deduce it)?
Sherlock Holmes was pretty handy with that stuff.
math is just an extension of philosophy
But dude I think we were performing mathematical functions cognitively (counting) long before we developed an audible language.
This must mean that even if math is a symbol language, it’s coherency as a language must have involved fairly accurate judgements made by pre-linguistic humans about their environment and things in it, or else we might not have survived long enough to become linguistic.
I think all this means that math is not just an abstract language, but a direct symbolic representation of very real states and events in the world. Like it mirrors the world in the way W suggests logic mirrors the world.
So in other words, our mathematical language is not something we could have gotten wrong. Like if you fuck up a mathematical judgement in certain circumstances, that mistake can be deadly.
You don’t need language to do mathematics .
What does this mean?
For example:
In logic a set of statements is said to be consistent or non-contradictory if no contradiction can be derived from it, i.e. no expression and at the same time its negation. Since inconsistent sets of statements can be used to “prove” anything, even nonsense, the absence of contradictions is indispensable for useful scientific theories, logical calculi or mathematical axiom systems.
Maybe the near absolute reductive limit that produces no further identifiable patterns of phenomenal value out of all possible sets of differences.
The reduction of all possible triads of any set into two reduced phenomenal sets of 1 and 2, until all such become indistinguishable.
( where any possible set of 2 becomes 1 at the limit of phenomenal reduction, whereby they appear absolutely indistinguishable or absolutely singularly definitely unique, to the excluded middle
Since this cant happen , but must for a total singular certainty the answer must be yes
( There must be such an X, so that Y and Z must be rational.- (( divisible or different~recognizable)) ).
If not, philosophy regresses toward it’s unrecognizable symbolic elements and their formal constructed patterns will disintegrate.
Therefore they must be integrated, virtually .absolutely.
Therefore, the absolute must be contained in the relative.The virtual must be contained in the real and also the other way around.
And how should the virtual have come into the real and the real into the virtual? 
They leak or wash into each other, overlapping at limits to the point of contradiction, where they eventually exclude re-cognizanle symbolic signs .
The virtual and the real may represent any proposed affirmation and negation, setting the real, hypo-hyper real in opposition to the virtual causing a regression toward the absolute meaningless, until then, feedback systems occur between the real and the virtual.( relative)
This feedback system spill back into and from modally supposed opposing slices, cuts of reality.
The fed back modalities are the calculus of variable integration.
My supposition is abased on an inherent logical mapping which presupposes a. ‘real’ calculation
For I presume logic as inherent mapping of calculable extrinsic formal devices. - math
True but even Holmes had to have some kind of reference.
Why should the real and the virtual “leak or wash into each other, overlapping at limits to the point of contradiction, where they eventually exclude re-cognizanle symbolic signs”?
If it is true that the affectivity state of mood - the moodiness - is the basic event of our existence, something like a basic existential way of the equally original comprehension of world (cf. Heidegger), depending on its way it uncovers the being in the whole (cf. Heidegger), then it is extraordinarily important for the epistemology, because it predetermines the knowledge. It decides for or against knowledge in certain ways.
This also explains the question that you, Obsvr, asked once, namely: whether it is not better to orient oneself not according to truth and reality, but according to the prohibitions and commandments of power. Back then, I thought that was the most important question I have read here on ILP so far.
The state of feeling is important; but so is the knowledge. I am assuming that feeling is something irrational (which is not the same as anti-rational) and knowledge is something rational. If now the affectivity determines whether it wants to participate in knowledge at all and, if so, decides in favor of certain knowledge, then the power and lobby of knowledge can not resist against it at first, but later it can make the affectivity its subject in order to be able to influence it then, so that the affectivity would be tricked and only “believed” to determe, although in reality it got into dependence on the power and lobby of knowledge.
It is similar with the rational and irrational numbers in mathematics. At first, mathematics faces the irrational numbers powerlessly, but then it makes them its subject and integrates them, so that it - mathematics, which sees itself as something rational - gets power over the irrational. Mathematics still understands itself as something rational and has integrated much irrational, i.e. has learned to control it.
You’re presenting a proper Heideggerian questioning here, nice.
Heidegger through the lens of Nietzsche interprets truth as a value, that is to say as a condition to life, where a life is a self-enhancing, more primarily than it is a self-preserving; life is not static but must self-enhance in order to self-preserve. Truth is conceived as a means to be able to resist the onslaught of chaos, which itself could also be regarded as truth but in such a case truth would not be a value, but rather something to be avoided - truth would be dangerous, damaging.
And indeed, in the frequent cases where truth is set against the commandments and prohibitions of power, to pursue truth is to unleash the onslaught of chaos upon oneself.
On the other hand we can say that power represents an instance of life’s successful self-enhancing, and thus must have pursued truth in order to get to command.
And such effectivity is really subliminal holistically an undifferentiated mystical whole that can manipulate the differing levels of energy that can power the keys which open the doors of power.
Levy Bruhl sees the irrational as prevy to participatory, albeit unknown inter-personal energy.
Taboo originates from such relational matrixes.
Totems are erected as gross symbolic reminders of such.
(That is if mathematics and the language of philosophy can be understood as an exclusivity with the social sciences subordinated yet pre-integrated with philosophy.
Logic and sense being the widest perimeters between mathematics and language.)
Ultimately, yes - well of course every psychedelic trip offers this space but not each trippant is capable of living, being there. Most get ‘bad trips’ at first – the two approaches to truth and power which form that logical dichotomy and mystical whole can be seen as two doorways that enter the same space (that which is thus beyond both truth and power, uniting them) and have to be entered at once in order to enter the, um, dragon.
And then of course I read Bruce Lee
for sure. What are your thoughts of the Lacanian Real on this, is it related to that mass which subjects by its irrational vitality which cant be penetrated by truth, which cant be employed? Is this connected to deep layers of the mind, theta wave, massive interpersonal conjectures and echo’s of that which is known as truth?
Truth is like a gong that makes the cave known to itself as a space. It is not the sound, but the gong itself. The sound is released by truth and we can follow the sound to the gong. But it is not easy as the cave has many chambers which all resound the gong as if they hold its presence, some even more powerfully than the home of the gong itself.
The hidden chamber.
It turns out as you approach te gong you find a kid with an arrow in his shoulder, lying there unconsciously pale with fever. He is dreaming all of what you’re doing. He struck the gong.
Yes, as deterrents as much as reminders, scarecrows which become godlike figures of their own, evoking the fear is as much as evoking the god in the sense of “gaud”, that which can be evoked, in the non mystical, purely psychological sense, in the sense that doesn’t expect to be understood. Much of life’s art is just reminding ourselves of the god - the suggestion is plenty to trigger the immanent into bursts of transcendence which can be sensed in terms of the light sense of power, subtle electricity, tingling health; the utmost crest of nature is the full explication of the suggestion into dance, in a whirl of playful denial of truth itself; allowing truth to keep seducing us as we are replenished every Planck tick by our autonomy before truth, our power to take it or leave it.
This power is not truth. It’s not even will, it’s consciousness of consciousness, it’s not the void and it’s not god, it’s man, more precisely, woman.
I understand very well what it means for a set of statements to be consistent (or non-contradictory) but what does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
Fixed Cross wrote:
“What are your thoughts of the Lacanian Real on this, is it related to that mass which subjects by its irrational vitality which cant be penetrated by truth, which cant be employed? Is this connected to deep layers of the mind, theta wave, massive interpersonal conjectures and echo’s of that which is known as truth?”
Topical description of truth value do connect to interpersonal descriptions of very closely related familiarly organized levels, and they even exist on largely spaced ( out) and increasingly dissimilar models or recognition. Except at the vanishing point>level , these manifest within higher field of energy-particle distribution, where affectance still. differ,to a more finely tuned higher frequency receptor. This is in tune with Your Huxley interpretation between projector and receptor.
At the lowest level ( almost a straight, non oscilatting line, the very minimal level occurs at the level that is just past the identifiable duality.
So it sets the stage at that level, and becomes the lowest identifiable taboo-symbolic function
at the collective level.
I would instead say that urges accept or reject the cognitive knowledge’s urge restrictions (currently studying James’ physics of psychology 
). The urges (“Perception of Hope and Threat - PHT”) determines all behavior. The urges are the emoters or emotions - impetuses - activists - motivators - lobbyists. Knowledge would be the perception of what is or isn’t - presenting what the real-world options are that are available - what can or cannot be done - perception of the actual situation - perception of God.
The urges internally vote in order to attempt a motion (“I move that —” - “bring the vote to the floor”). The parliament or congress inclusive of other urges - including those reluctant to attempt what is perceived as undoable (and possibly dangerous) compete for administrative power to carry out their impetus.
It is merely a competition of urges - some accepting the perceived boundaries of reality inherent in knowledge and some blind to such boundaries - the conservatives and the liberals. All mental factions cannot see what every other faction sees - literally different viewing angles or viewpoints or bubbles of belief.
The analogy that you are suggesting is that (in this case) the liberals are the irrational (ignoring restraints) and the conservatives are the rational (respecting the restraints). They compete in their mental parliament for priority and authority to spend the energy and money to do what they have the urge to do.
Ok - with you so far.
and you saw how far that got. 
Yes - what is wanted and what the real options are - both must be respected (except in the US).
I wouldn’t make that sweep. I think feelings CAN be either rational or irrational (void of rationale). And perceived knowledge might not be rational true knowledge. And that is why the never ending competition continues on - neither is always right or wrong. Experience teaches which was wrong at the time and suggests which might have been right. That would be the learning process and why Senators really really really should be experience people and why the O’Biden globalist authoritarians are pushing as many inexperienced and foolish people into the US Senate (and entire US government) and why fathers are being silenced and canceled (“Keep them Mericans as dumb as they come.”)
“Do we want to look at the world That way or This way?” Voting and experience after the fact would adjust which ontology to use (socialistic or constitutional for example or God exists or doesn’t exist) - “which boundaries do we want to set as the best hope and threat scenario for the future?”.
Ok I think I am still with you -
I have a little trouble with “sees itself” and “understands itself” - but I agree that mathematicians find way to deal with liberals and nonsense.
Now -
What was your question again? 
Can philosophy find ways to deal with nonsense? 
The only reason mathematicians make progress is because they follow the logic restrictions - they are the conservatives (unlike those in CA now preaching that 3+3=7 - “just because we want it to”). So you are really asking if rational philosophers can find a way of dealing with irrational philosophers - right?
In maths, they are not allowed to vote.
So should we not allow illogical/irrational philosophers to speak?
That would fix the problem.
James’ Resolution Debate process lays that out - forbids illogical statements. The problem is that it takes rational people to monitor it (much like in maths).
What I think you are really asking is whether irrational people alone can find their way out of the forest.
- only by accident.
Heidegger sees first and foremost through his own lens; he can certainly be classified as someone for whom a time before him and a time after him can be named, that is, as someone who himself set a milestone. In this sense, Heidegger also interprets truth in a Heideggerian way. That means concretely: He interprets truth as unconcealment (ancient Greek: alethia).
Heidegger started from the Pre-Socratics, especially from Heraclitus, and claimed that with Plato the change of the essence of truth began.
How Heidegger interprets Nietzsche in this context:
“Truth is the kind of error without which a certain kind of living being could not live.” (Nietzsche, record from the year 1885, The Will to Power, n. 493). If truth, according to Nietzsche, is a kind of error, then its essence lies in a way of thinking, which falsifies the real every time, and that necessarily, insofar as namely every imagining stands still the incessant “becoming” and sets up with the thus established, opposite to the flowing “becoming”, a nonconforming, i.e. false and thus an erroneous as the supposedly real.
In Nietzsche’s determination of truth as the falsity of thought lies the assent to the traditional essence of truth as the rightness of stating (logos). Nietzsche’s concept shows the last reflection of the outermost consequence of that change of truth from the unconcealment of being to the correctness of looking. The change itself takes place in the determination of the being (das Sein) of the being (das Seiende [the “attendant”]) as idea.
According to this interpretation of being, the attendant is no longer, as in the beginning of Western thought, the rise of the hidden into the unconcealed, whereby this itself as the unconcealment constitutes the basic feature of the attendant. Plato understands the presence (ousia) as idea. However, this is not subject to the unconcealedness, in that it brings the unconcealed, serving it, to appear. Rather, vice versa, the shining - appearing, seeming - determines what may still be called unconcealedness within its essence and in the only reference back to it. The idea is not a representing foreground of the aletheia, but the reason that makes it possible. But even so, the idea still claims something of the initial, but unknown essence of the aletheia.
Plato’s thinking follows the change of the essence of truth, which change becomes the history of metaphysics, which has begun its unconditional completion in Nietzsche’s thinking. Plato’s doctrine of “truth” is therefore nothing past.
Cf. Heidegger, “Plato’s Theory of Truth”, 1931/'32, Lecture, 1931p. 35-36, 39.
One would thus have to create the paradisiacal situation where truth is not “set against the commandments and prohibitions of power”, where “to pursue truth” not means “to unleash the onslaught of chaos upon oneself”.
It is not possible to make rational numbers from irrational numbers. For centuries, mathematicians have been working to turn irrational numbers into rational numbers.
My reasoning was that it must also be the case in philosophy that the irrational cannot simply be made rational. One can integrate the irrational, so that one can work with it (as one can calculate with it in mathematics), but one cannot eliminate it from the world, e.g. by simply declaring it to be something rational. In philosophy it must be possible - and it is possible - to integrate the irrational in such a way that it results together with the rational in something real (as in the case of mathematics also: real numbers as a set with the two subsets of rational numbers and irrational numbers).