What is the Will to Power?

Zoot Allures wrote:it might sound like that to you, but that's not what it means, because neither of those statements there can be true, either. if they're true, then they're not true.

That's not true. It depends on how you interpret these statements.

Consider a statement such as "Il pleut". If you try to interpret this statement using the rules of English language you will have no choice but to conclude it's meaningless because words "il" and "pleut" are not defined, have no meaning, within the boundaries of English language. However, if you try to interpret it using the rules of French language you will be able to not only understand its meaning but also translate it in English. Basically, you will be able to understand that what the statement means is "It rains".

If you want to understand what people are saying and if you want to do so with a high degree of accuracy then what you have to do is you have to correctly identify the language that they are using. If you do not do so, you will misunderstand them. Ultimately, it depends on your goals. Perhaps in certain situations a misunderstanding is better than no understanding or an accurate understanding that requires a lot of effort.

So, if someone says "Truth is there are no truths" you can either try to interpret what they are saying using conventional language or you can try to interpret what they are saying using whatever language they themselves are using. If you choose the former, you will have no choice but to conclude that the statement is a contradiction and thus meaningless. But if you do the latter, you may realize the statement is a meaningful one.

"Truth is there is no truth" can be interpreted to mean "I think that there are no synthetic propositions that are absolutely certain i.e. that cannot turn out to be wrong at some point in the future".

deductive truths are always absolutely true, and inductive truths are sometimes absolutely true. the difference between the two is that the former is absolutely true by definition alone, i.e., a bachelor is an unmarried man. the latter, i.e., all frogs are amphibians, is absolutely true if we agree to classify the animal as an amphibian. notice though that while all unmarried men are bachelors, not all amphibians are frogs. this prevents the latter assertion from being a tautology.

Sure, you can say that analytic propositions are absolutely true. And yes, this would mean that there are absolutes, an infinite number of them as James S Saint of ILP would say. But this is a different definition of the word "absolute". You are defining the word "absolute" to mean "tautology".

By the way, both "a bachelor is an unmarried man" and "all frogs are amphibians" are tautologically true i.e. true by definition alone.

now it makes no difference whether or not we have real knowledge of what the world is like, in order for these absolutes to exist, because they reflect only linguistic categories and rules that may or may not accurately represent reality. but it isn't reality we are agreeing with when we talk sensibly about such things as bachelors and frogs. we are agreeing with each other, and our conclusions are absolutely true if we share the same rules (and we do).

Yes, tautologies do exist.

a consequence of this fact is that when asserting there are no absolutes, the conclusion is either true or false, absolutely. you can't get around that, so you avoid asserting that there are no absolutes, and you'll be fine.

That's not true.

Zoot wrote:somehow (i don't even remember now), we got going on this thing about an exception disproving a rule, and somebody brought up swans. i think it was me. i used popper's falsifiability principle to show how no amount of positive evidence can prove a rule such as 'all swans are white,' while only one instance of negative evidence (a black or green swan) can disprove it.

Yes, I think we are all aware of that.

you then pulled pierce out on me, and claimed that such negative evidence couldn't be trusted because it could be fallible.

I didn't say that negative evidence can't be trusted. I said that it is fallible and that it is sometimes better to ignore it.

my riposte was: but then the theory that all swans are white would also be fallible.

Yes, both particular and general propositions are fallible. General propositions even more so since they are built on top of particular propositions. If you find it hard to trust particular propositions, you will find it even harder to trust general propositions.

my point is not that all observations are infallible, but that if you grant the accurate observation of white swans, and then propose a theory that all swans are white, you'd disprove that theory if you found a black or green swan.

Yes, that's true. What I am saying is that in practice it is sometimes better to be imprecise. That's pragmatism. Pragmatism says that truth is not necessarily better than falsity. Isn't that what Nietzsche said too? What pragmatism says is that what is better and what is worse depends on the environment. Some environments punish imprecision and reward precision; other environments punish precision and reward imprecision. So within certain environments, a statement such as "All swans are white" survives even when we are aware of a number of swans that are not white (but say green or black or pink or purple.) In fact, within certain environments, such a statement is more favorable than a statement such as "For every single black swan there is a large number, say a trillion, of white swans".

Darwin's evolution is an example of two-way causation. You have the upward or bottom-up causality of local freedom (random mutations) and the downward or top-down causality of global constraints (natural selection.) Beliefs are formed in the same exact way. They are free inventions that are then either constrained or not constrained by the environment. What this means is that beliefs are not reflections of reality in the causal sense of the word. Reality does not causes us to see this or that. It merely imposes constraints. And if the environment is permissive, it may impose no constraints at all and thus allow us to think whatever we want to think. So everything we know might be an illusion.

Zoot Allures wrote:now don't mistake me for saying there can't be any absolutes, because there certainly can. i am merely pointing out that you are undermining yourself by claiming there are no absolutes, and then basing that conclusion on premises you must assume are absolutely true to make that argument.

deductive truths are always absolutely true, and inductive truths are sometimes absolutely true. the difference between the two is that the former is absolutely true by definition alone, i.e., a bachelor is an unmarried man. the latter, i.e., all frogs are amphibians, is absolutely true if we agree to classify the animal as an amphibian. notice though that while all unmarried men are bachelors, not all amphibians are frogs. this prevents the latter assertion from being a tautology.

Then point to an absolute...defined as:
Immutable, indivisible, eternal, a whole, a one...
A frog is an organism that is evolving...changing. It exists within a world that is fluctuating and affecting it constantly.
A mutable category...a pattern.  
It is not an absolute frog. A Platonic Ideal frog.

Zoot Allures wrote:a consequence of this fact is that when asserting there are no absolutes, the conclusion is either true or false, absolutely. you can't get around that, so you avoid asserting that there are no absolutes, and you'll be fine.

The mind works on absolutes...binary code.
1/0...like your true/false, then it makes concessions to the fluidity of reality (Flux) using fractions (mathematics), if it has integrity...if not it settles for the dualisms and instead of representations it convinces itself, or if is too simple to know the difference...it takes its own constructs literally.
It converts the fluid into abstraction.
Noumenon = idea(l) - the mind interpreting the phenomenon, usually through a medium, like atmosphere, or light.
light interacts with phenomenon, then it interacts with eye, the interactions, stimuli, is translated to a neurological form to be processed and transmitted to brain, if brain is present in organism. There it is converted to sensation, triggering reactions like emotions, in more sophisticated organism, and converted to abstraction, image, idea = noumena I call these conversions in the brain.

No thing-in-itself. An interpretation of the real - phenomenon converted to noumenon, and then stored,a s memory, or reacted to: emotion, fight/flight, art, including language.
Semiotics is the study of symbols given to sensations, emotions, abstractions.
The abstraction can be entirely a product of the brain.....sampling from memory and synthesizing....like Satyr, that arrogant ass-hole.
No half horse half man in world....entirely a human construct.
Therein lies the danger of art, for the youth in particular. Art can corrupt them, as Plato said. Art, language, can be used to corrupt minds.
It can construct pleasing, alternative realities, seductive possibilities that have no basis in reality. Mind candy.

Zoot Allures wrote:you should be able to accept this as long as you realize that statements about other statements can be absolutely true or false, as in deductive truths, and sometimes absolutely true or false, as in inductive statements. like it is absolutely true that i just said that. that's an inductive truth, because you just experienced me saying that. you confirmed that it is true, absolutely, because you read it (and trust that i typed it).

The category 'bachelor' is a manmade concept...it has no reality outside human brains..like the concept God, defined in Abrahamic terms.
The mind takes its abstractions and then declares them absolute, which then necessitates an absolute refutation.
All this debate over the Abrahamic description of God, is nonsense....those that proposed it simply declared it, and then justified it using words games....and we must now deal with how it affected simpletons.
So, man declares 'one' as existing outside his brain, and then nil must be invented as its negation....both are symbols that cannot be found outside the mind.
The one proposing something, like an absolute must show evidence of it...not speak it, not define it....but show it so that we can all share in its glory  

The 'absolute' you may be referring to is your certainty....using the word 'absolute' to express conviction, and a degree of probability which exceeds your standard for doubting, or exceeds your level of skepticism you allow to trouble your mind. It's an expression of your psychology, your judgment's criteria.
I gave you the definition of 'absolute' I am working with.

Some words can be used in different contexts...like 'mother of battles'....as metaphors expressing extremes. The battle does not have a mother....it's a metaphor expressing degree.
Spinoza claimed that much of the Bible was a misunderstanding of the Hebrew expression 'God' which signified at the time what was considered extraordinary, large....So god's bush means huge bush....god's fire meant large fire....and so on.  

Zoot Allures wrote:now that's something. first, how do you know the noumena (thing-in-itself) is absolute if you cannot experience it?

Noumenon is not thing-in-itself.
Noumeno is the mental representation of a phenomenon - abstraction is another word.
I differentiate 'abstraction' it from other noumena, like emotion, sensation. Noumenon is the interpretation of an interaction.
A translation.

Zoot Allures wrote:also, playing the 'everything changes' card does not detract from the possibility of there being absolutes. all that card does is show that properties change, not necessarily identities. for example, joe and john are both bachelors, and therefore unmarried men... but joe has brown hair and john has blonde. joe and john are not the same, but they are still both bachelors. the properties of the bachelors are different, but the identities are the same insofar as they are both unmarried men.

Choose another metaphor....marriage is a human construct. It has no reality outside human systems and ideals.
There is no marriage in nature.

Zoot Allures wrote:another example is your buddy heraclitus's river. if part of the definition of the river is 'something that changes', the identity of the river would remain the same regardless of the changes of it's various properties.

Yes....because the river has been abstracted. It has been made into a noumenon...an idea that can now refer to the same phenomenon, this flow of water, or to any flow of water.
The words 'river' like the word 'one' has become an idea that can refer to anything, in the case of 'one', and in the case of 'river' to anything that has specific criteria.
They've been converted to noumenon, referring to phenomena, the apparent.
The river is never the same, but the idea remains fixed in my head as abstraction with particular traits....my criteria for what 'river' means.
I then name the particular river to distinguish it from all other rivers.  

Zoot Allures wrote:i dunno if i can agree with that assessment. you've said that (a) reflects (c), since if (b) is (c), (a) must reflect (c). i think rather that 'man's perception' reflects logic, not vice-versa.

Once the mind has abstracted the phenomenon into a noumenon, ti can manipulate it. The 'river' can be combined with fire, or made to flow upward....because the mind is not bound by the rules of nature.
This is what men-children take advantage of to fabricate their magical kingdoms of word gibberish....like VO, and Abrahamism, and Marxism...Nihilism in general.

To discipline thinking to natural order logic places rules, restrictions, guidelines. It construct rules that make thinking self-consistent and world-consistent.
So A=A can only be a problem in the mind, in the world A can only be A.  
Only the mind can fantasize that A is also B, and C, and ABC.
Animals do not need Logic....because they do not confuse their abstractions of the real for the real...lacking imagination.

Zoot Allures wrote:i'm glad somebody does, because i sure as hell don't.

Hush...you've been trying to show yourself in many ways...but they turned away or misunderstood your intent. You then faced their wrath when you became angry and vengeful.

andy wrote:By the way, both "a bachelor is an unmarried man" and "all frogs are amphibians" are tautologically true i.e. true by definition alone.

perhaps i should have said the former is analytically true while the latter is not. but in some sense, 'frogs are amphibians' is not considered a tautology, because it isn't redundant, like 'bachelors are unmarried men'.

the difference is, bachelors are unmarried men because all unmarried men are bachelors, but frogs are not amphibians because all amphibians are frogs. that's what i was pointing out when trying to explain a difference between deductive and inductive truths. what i should have said is analytic and synthetic. you are right; that would have been clearer.

still i don't think either you or GM are grasping this concept of 'absolute' correctly. statements are either absolutely true or false. being 'absolute' is only about that truth value, not about whether or not the thing that the statement is made about, remains immutable or unchanging. if you tried to use such an argument, it would be recursive, and also subject to the impossibility of being both true and false. so whatever your argument is, it will either absolutely refute the statement that 'there are absolutes', and then reinstate the truth that there are absolutes by being absolutely true as a refutation, or, it won't refute the argument that there are absolutes at all.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

all that other stuff about pragmatism and fallibilism is great, but it's not going to defend you against popper's falsifiability principle in the case of the swans we've been arguing now for five days.

GM, you are using the word 'noumena' in an unsual way... at least not the way i'm used to it being used in philosophy.  

GM wrote:Noumenon is not thing-in-itself.
Noumeno is the mental representation of a phenomenon - abstraction is another word.

see i wouldn't make a distinction between the real state of an object and a mental representation of it. an object is nothing more than the sum total of appearances it exists as, making the perception of the object not an abstraction, but a complete picture of it. in other words, there isn't some hidden reality to things that cannot perceived... but not because we aren't unable to be perceptive to some kind of sense data... rather because an object isn't grounded in anything but it's properties, in the first place.

if you took away 'red', and 'round' and 'rolling' and 'large', etc., there would be nothing perceivable left of the ball. there could be no 'abstract' impression of a 'real' ball, because there is no real ball without these properties. at the same time, the ball's properties do not constitute some noumenal reality about it either, since joe could see the ball as purple and small, while we see it as red and large.

so to say that each perception of the ball is abstraction would imply that the ball has some concrete nature that didn't depend on it's being perceived in order constitute the being of the ball.

we've had this discussion about nominalism, years ago. you must not remember.

i'll reply more this evening. i don't have the time now to get into posting.

Zoot Allures wrote:

GM wrote:Noumenon is not thing-in-itself.
Noumeno is the mental representation of a phenomenon - abstraction is another word.

see i wouldn't make a distinction between the real state of an object and a mental representation of it.

I do.
The representation of the phenomenon is not the phenomenon. The painting of a tree, is not the tree. The photo of a cow is not the cow.
The idea is not always in reference to the real.

Zoot Allures wrote:an object is nothing more than the sum total of appearances it exists as, making the perception of the object not an abstraction, but a complete picture of it. in other words, there isn't some hidden reality to things that cannot perceived... but not because we aren't unable to be perceptive to some kind of sense data... rather because an object isn't grounded in anything but it's properties, in the first place.

An object can be a mental projection, an idea, or it can be the phenomenon, the apparent.
The mind uses them to orient itself within world.  

The properties of an object is how we interpret the stimulation, the interactions via a medium and convert them, translate them, into a form we can process and transmit.
Except for tactile interaction all other sensual perceptions use a medium.

Our translation are not useless....they are how we interpret the essence of the phenomenon - tried and tested over centuries of natural selection. So form, colour, sound, all are how we've evolved to interpret the particular patterns, using a specific sense organ.

There is no hidden reality.
World is always present. We cannot process all the data....or we simplify/generalize to make it easier to process.
Some data cannot be converted into abstraction and so remains an ambiguous sensation...not lost. This is intuition. Most data is not processed.
It comes forth in dreams, or remains subtle intuition, instinct, the so called 'gut feeling'.

Zoot Allures wrote:if you took away 'red', and 'round' and 'rolling' and 'large', etc., there would be nothing perceivable left of the ball. there could be no 'abstract' impression of a 'real' ball, because there is no real ball without these properties. at the same time, the ball's properties do not constitute some noumenal reality about it either, since joe could see the ball as purple and small, while we see it as red and large.

All these words name how we interpret a particular phenomenon. None of it is arbitrary or meaningless.
But the mind can react to it negatively and make it so....like how skin pigmentation is made into a superficial attribute...or the male/female form is made arbitrary, a superficial shell that says nothing about the individual.  

Zoot Allures wrote:so to say that each perception of the ball is abstraction would imply that the ball has some concrete nature that didn't depend on it's being perceived in order constitute the being of the ball.

we've had this discussion about nominalism, years ago. you must not remember.

I'm old....i forgot if I had a bowel movement this morning.
You are confusing me for my alter-ego Satyr...who is going around plagiarizing and regurgitating my views.
Like him, I've been around since the KillDevilHill days. Saw the emergence of the van clan, the beginning of forums, the birth of WearyLocomotive, flare-up across the sea of Orion, Dunamis, Raphael....all lost....like....tars in the rain.
That's when Satyr, named Wanderer back then, became me. The fucker was riding my coat-tails ever since.
When I wrote Feminization of Man....he claimed it.
When I constructed my metaphysics Interactions & Interpreters, he plagiarized it.....all this back in the early 2000. Right after Y2K, and before the Athens Olympics in 2004. I use those dates to place myself....because age is making it all difficult to recall.
I do not claim my metaphysics as being anything new and revolutionary....like nothing from Nietzsche in this are is. I am pre-Socratic and Heraclitean in this area. I claim my analysis of Nihilism, beginning with Feminization of Man, as my diagnosis that goes beyond the diagnosis of Frank.
I've traced it and identified it as a linguistic virus, born in times of decline, among the desperate and needy.....in the west it first emerged as a force as Abrahamism, in the east it had a different course, and manifested as Buddhism, in response to Hinduism.
A memetic virus, a parasite of the mind, infecting through language the minds of the feeble and desperate.

Zoot Allures wrote:i'll reply more this evening. i don't have the time now to get into posting.

The patterns interacting appear as ball. My perspective makes it seem round, but the closer I get, the more precise my acuity, using technologies, the edge disappears, the roundness is not smooth and perfect, but a rough edge of a interactive whole. It is whole because I've consciously distinguished it from the background.
A stone, for example, on a cliff, is one stone, only to me.....it is I who cut it away from the rest of reality and make it an absolute one stone, amidst many one stones.  
Its shape is determined by the range of effect of the participating patterns, differentiated by speed of change....by speed of interaction.... faster, air, from slower matter - elements participating in the stone.

All is fluid, so my conception of an edge is based on my evolved ability to perceive change. The slower vibrating/oscillating patterns (elements) of the stone are different from the faster atmosphere, or from light energy, which I use as a medium to perceive the stone.
Light interacts with the matter (stone), and then interacts with my sense organ, where the stimuli are converted to particular evolved ways of interpreting: form, colour, texture etc.

The rock has an essence that is independent from perception, yes.
It exists whether there are living organism to perceive it or not. World exists before life.
It exists as fluid energy, patterned and non-patterned energies interacting. An organism present, a subjective mind, interprets this energy in a way that it evolved to interpret interactions.
if this method is successful it is established as a survival mechanism.
So, man's interpretation, abstractions, are good enough....to encapsulate the essence of the pattern....like seeing a banana's colour and connecting ti to its ripeness. The colour says something about the object of my interest. It is not superficial and arbitrary.
A bee may have evolved another way of interpreting the same essence.
A dog another - slight modifications are due to a common ancestry that diverge into different species with specialized reproductive and survival strategies.

The same patterns (energies), let's not deal with random energies just yet....are interpreted differently by different species....but the same pattern whether it is called red, or bob, or whatever, if the name, the abstraction, given a name, does not refer to that same pattern, then it refers to nothing outside the mind.
Doesn't matter what you call a rose, if you refer to the same combination of patterns with specific interactions, behaviours, then the name is unimportant and a matter of convention.  
But if you intentionally choose another name, despite convention, then you have an ulterior motive.  

I call it 'dog', another 'chien', another 'skyli'....but all these words, represent an abstraction created by interacting with the same kind of phenomenon - an organic one, with specific traits, behaviours.  
If I choose to call it Cerberus. then I am imposing a different motive than that of clarifying and studying what the organism dog is.

GM wrote:The representation of the phenomenon is not the phenomenon. The painting of a tree, is not the tree. The photo of a cow is not the cow.
The idea is not always in reference to the real.

you are misunderstanding the problem i'm pointing out to you. qualitatively, the perception of a tree and a painting of a tree is the same thing for the purposes of this problem. of course you could use the word 'abstraction' to mean the painting, and the word 'concrete' to mean the actual tree. the point, however, is that insofar as both the painting and the tree are collections of perceivable properties, neither one stands as an orginal, concrete form that exists without the particular properties each has.

to put this in platonic terms, the painting would be a copy of the tree, and the tree would be a copy of.....?

so you see that to say what we perceive is an 'abstraction' must imply that there exists a universal form or concrete object that is what it is despite how the properties are perceived.

the idea is always a reference 'to the real', as you put it, because the real is only the collection of properties.

i used to entertain the notion of 'substance', or the irreducible thing-ness that can continue to exist once all the properties are subtracted... but hume convinced me otherwise. this substance cannot be perceived, so the idea of it is a violation of empirical reasoning.

still this presents a kind of parmenidean paradox that is counter-intuitive. a closed system of energy- a space full of finite energy- cannot be in a total state of flux, because the whole system doesn't change... just the particular relationships and configurations of the energies it contains.

I do not like receiving homework so I tend not to give any.
But if anyone, out there, is interested in further reading, I recommend...
Process Philosophy - A Survey of Basic Issues, by Rescher, Nicholas an a critique of Wittgenstein, another one of the 'chosen peoples' that have been dynamiting European man....
Words and Things - A Critical Account of Linguistics philosophy and a Study in Ideology, by Ernest Gellner, with a foreword by Bertrand Russell.

Zoot Allures wrote:

GM wrote:The representation of the phenomenon is not the phenomenon. The painting of a tree, is not the tree. The photo of a cow is not the cow.
The idea is not always in reference to the real.

you are misunderstanding the problem i'm pointing out to you. qualitatively, the perception of a tree and a painting of a tree is the same thing for the purposes of this problem. of course you could use the word 'abstraction' to mean the painting, and the word 'concrete' to mean the actual tree. the point, however, is that insofar as both the painting and the tree are collections of perceivable properties, neither one stands as an orginal, concrete form that exists without the particular properties each has.

And so all is tested by application.
I test my subjective interpretations of tree by interacting with tree.
If I do not want to risk it...i test my perceptions of tree by constant juxtaposition of real tree (phenomenon) with my theoretical representation of tree (noumenon), trying to make it more accurate, precise, detailed.  

Zoot Allures wrote:to put this in platonic terms, the painting would be a copy of the tree, and the tree would be a copy of.....?

Tree is not a copy...it is pattern interacting with other patterns.
Each tree, though of the same kind, is a different tree. Its DNA (shared memories) have interacted with different environments (experiences)....with different patterns to a different degree.
tree is not a copy...it is part of a continuum....it is the sum of its past.
Nature = sum of nurturing.
It is past made present. A specific type of pattern or unity of patterns that is changing, mutating, with every interaction - adapting, adjusting.  

Zoot Allures wrote:So you see that to say what we perceive is an 'abstraction' must imply that there exists a universal form or concrete object that is what it is despite how the properties are perceived.

the idea is always a reference 'to the real', as you put it, because the real is only the collection of properties.

A collection of patterns.
You do not perceive an abstraction, you perceive the phenomenon AS an abstraction.

Zoot Allures wrote:i used to entertain the notion of 'substance', or the irreducible thing-ness that can continue to exist once all the properties are subtracted... but hume convinced me otherwise. this substance cannot be perceived, so the idea of it is a violation of empirical reasoning.

I did not say one-substance....I said patterned and non-patterned energies.
What name you give this totality you've manufactured in your head is your problem. There is no uni-verse....only cosmos. But we need wholes to conceptualize.
No whole oneness...only multiplicity.

World is Flux....so both objective and subjective are fluctuating, flowing....the subjective trying to keep in harmony, in-touch, with the objective, that is falling away.

You can visualize the 'fabric of existence', let's say, as the radiating momentum of the ongoing event we call Big Bang.
Everything that exists is dynamic - tautology....from this dynamism, possibility, emerge patterns with a consistent, repeating vibration/oscillation, that can emerge, ephemerally, into stable, balanced unities, we call participles, atoms, and so on.  
Non-patterned energies cannot merge, for they are unstable, unpredictable, lacking a rhythm.
So the repulsive force is always greater than the attractive. The galaxies are moving away from each other because randomness is increasing.

Patterns closer in harmony, and you as a musician can appreciate this, will have a higher attraction relative to the repulsion force...this will be the path-of-least-resistance.
No motive, intent required...no judgment, consciousness needed. A river flows down the hill following a path-of-least-resistance...not willing itself.
But incompatible patterns can also find a home in balance with the participation of a mitigating third, or fourth, that counteracts the repulsive force producing an excess of attraction....which would balance and be called, by us, a unity.

Like you are annoyed by a friend, he repulses you, but if a third friend is present you can tolerate him more. The third friend mitigates to balance your repulsion with what attraction is also present.
Interactivity is a word for repulsion/attraction -a measure of the harmony between different vibrations/oscillation.
This is responsible for the complex unities we can perceive as matter...if and when they grow large enough for our pathetic sense organs to perceive them as appearances.

I will not get into how chaos also participates in this and still remains minute, and growing smaller as space/time expands.  i have to go do stuff, and my butt is aching.
You will also be asking, what is vibrating/oscillating...but I will not answer that just yet. First we must deal with the preliminaries.

Zoot Allures wrote:still this presents a kind of parmenidean paradox that is counter-intuitive. a closed system of energy- a space full of finite energy- cannot be in a total state of flux, because the whole system doesn't change... just the particular relationships and configurations of the energies it contains.

The paradox is based on the confusion language produces when it represents abstractions...when it is taken literally and not as a figurative art-form.
The interpreted is a representation of fluidity, so the real is, indeed, counter-intuitive.
The brain needs abstractions, binary ones for simpler minds - 0/1....on/off.
Abstractions are simplifications/generalizations of Flux....a snapshot of a fluid state.
Abstraction is the cutting-away of dimensions, where spatial dimensions mean possibility - according to Heidegger, I believe.
So an abstraction is a simplification/generation of dimensional possibilities. The mind has to do this to process the data.
See Bonini's paradox.
Simplification/Generalization reduces the pattern down to patterns - this is called understanding. Pattern within the patterns. We call those Laws of Nature.
But it can go too far...right? the mind is prone to excess because it is fed massive amounts of energies by the body, and it is cocooned within the skull.

Natural selection takes effect.
In theory all is perfect...but when and if applied the errors are revealed as costs.....negative consequences.
I can construct the perfect, self-referential, self-consisted theory....and still it is bullshyte if it is detached from reality, or not applicable.
In the mind it is perfect...in reality it is delusion, language based and self validating.  

This is why philosophy is useless...for the most part, as it is practiced by Moderns.
The only true philosophy is the one that compares the mental models with another's (debate, dialogue), and with the world, empirically.
The world is the standard.
My theory must have connections to what can be perceived by others. The mystical is a cop-out by the cowardly and those who covet the effects of being a well-known thinker.

Zoot Allures wrote:GM, you are using the word 'noumena' in an unsual way... at least not the way i'm used to it being used in philosophy.

I am pretty sure you said this before. Few years ago. And back then my response, which I kept to myself, was the same as it is now. It might be you who's using the word "noumenon" in an unusual way.

Wiki is a good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

The original meaning of the word is "that which is thought". Look under the section "Etymology". This is in contrast to the meaning of the word "phenomenon" which is "that which appears".

Now skip to Schopenhauer's critique of the concept and what you'll see is the following:

Wikipedia wrote:Schopenhauer claimed that Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly. He explained in his "Critique of the Kantian philosophy", which first appeared as an appendix to The World as Will and Representation:

"But it was just this distinction between abstract knowledge and knowledge of perception, entirely overlooked by Kant, which the ancient philosophers denoted by noumena and phenomena. (See Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I, Chapter 13, ' What is thought (noumena) is opposed to what appears or is perceived (phenomena).' ) This contrast and utter disproportion greatly occupied these philosophers in the philosophemes of the Eleatics, in Plato's doctrine of the Ideas, in the dialectic of the Megarics, and later the scholastics in the dispute between nominalism and realism, whose seed, so late in developing, was already contained in the opposite mental tendencies of Plato and Aristotle. But Kant who, in an unwarrantable manner, entirely neglected the thing for the expression of which those words phenomena and noumena had already been taken, now takes possession of the words, as if they were still unclaimed, in order to denote by them his things-in-themselves and his phenomena.[35]"

The noumenon's original meaning of "that which is thought" is not compatible with the "thing-in-itself", the latter meaning things as they exist apart from their existence as images in the mind of an observer.[citation needed]

If this is true then what this means is that Kant changed the original meaning of the word. Kant got popular and so what followed is everyone thinking that the word "noumenon" means "thing-in-itself".

So it appears to me you are not doing this language analysis thing properly.

Zoot Allures wrote:perhaps i should have said the former is analytically true while the latter is not.

Both propositions are analytically true. These are truths by definition, by norm, by convention, etc. These are propositions that are true because we say they are true. They are, properly speaking, syntactically correct statements. They are statements that do nothing but meet the standards and conventions prescribed by some culture, or some group of people, or some individual.

but in some sense, 'frogs are amphibians' is not considered a tautology, because it isn't redundant, like 'bachelors are unmarried men'.

Good luck defining what a tautology is. The point is that a statement such as "frogs are amphibians" is considered a tautology because it is true by the virtue of the word "frog" being defined in such a way that it cannot refer to anything other than an amphibian (in the same way the word "bachelor" cannot refer to anything other than a man who is unmarried.)

the difference is, bachelors are unmarried men because all unmarried men are bachelors, but frogs are not amphibians because all amphibians are frogs.

Yes, that is a difference, but is that a relevant difference? I don't think so.

The concept of "bachelor" is the same as the concept of "unmarried man". On the other hand, the concept of "frog" is not the same as the concept of "amphibian". An amphibian can be something other than a frog. So there is a difference between the two statements. However, that does not change the fact that they are tautologies (in the sense that they are true by definition.)

still i don't think either you or GM are grasping this concept of 'absolute' correctly.

You want to say that I am using the word "absolute" in an unconventional way. Well, maybe. When I say "absolute certainty" what I mean is the absence of the possibility of being wrong. Do you have a better word for that thing?

statements are either absolutely true or false. being 'absolute' is only about that truth value, not about whether or not the thing that the statement is made about, remains immutable or unchanging.

The word "absolute" means "complete". So "absolutely true" means "completely true" or "100% true". There is no doubt in my mind that there are such statements. If your statement is "All swans are white" and your observations are "White swan, white swan, white swan" then your statement is absolutely true in relation to your observations because it fits every single one of them. There are, in other words, no exceptions to the rule.

I am not talking about things that are immutable or unchanging. I am talking about absolute certainty which is the absence of the possibility of being wrong. Note that statements are only ever compared to a portion of reality. So your observations at the present might be "White swan, white swan, white swan" and these would correspond to your statement but there is no guarantee that at some point in the future your observations won't be "White swan, white swan, white swan, black swan" and thus in contradiction with your statement. The point that I am trying to make is a very simple one.

you're right about the frog, andy. it is an analytical truth. i shouldn't have used that statement about the frog as an example for GM. i should have used something like 'this frog has a blond moustache', which would make it probable (inductive) rather than a demonstrative (deductive). then i could have used the statement as an example of something that cannot be known to be absolutely true without experiencing it, first (a posteriori). that was the relevant difference you just asked about; some statements can be absolutely true by definition alone (one version of the tautology), while others must first be verified by experience.

my bad, bro-bro.

and i'm gonna say the ancients concept of 'noumena' amounts to the same thing as what kant did with it. each are referring to some real thing to which perception corresponds. i'm saying there is no real thing... no real thing about which there is something other than it's abstract properties. therefore, knowing an object isn't really an abstraction anymore, because that's all the thing is in the first place. on the other hand, if there was such a thing as plato's universals or kant's thing-in-itself, one might say that knowledge of particulars would only be abstractions. i'm not saying that, and won't say that.

andy wrote:The point that I am trying to make is a very simple one.

frustrating, isn't it? that's philosophical language games, for you.

ZA wrote:that was the relevant difference you just asked about; some statements can be absolutely true by definition alone (one version of the tautology), while others must first be verified by experience.

My argument is that there is no such a thing as absolute certainty. In other words, there is no synthetic proposition that is infallible (i.e. that cannot turn out to be wrong.)

I don't deny that tautological propositions exist. I simply don't care about them.

What I care about is your original statement according to which it makes no sense to speak of objects having potentials because we cannot be absolutely certain what potentials they actually have.

I see that you have no problem using unconventional language yourself. You have no problem saying something like "things don't have power, things are power". You only have a problem with other people using language in an unconventional way, specifically, when they speak in such a way that you find it difficult to understand what they are saying. You're not a lover of convention.

and i'm gonna say the ancients concept of 'noumena' amounts to the same thing as what kant did with it.

That would be your word against Schopenhauer's word.

This is how I understand these terms:

Phenomena = observations
Noumena = theories

"This swan is white" and "This swan is black" are statements that represent phenomenal knowledge i.e. the kind of knowledge that we acquire empirically (through experience.)

A statement such as "All swans are white", on the other hand, represents noumenal knowledge i.e. the kind of knowledge that we acquire rationally (through intellect.)

"Hidden reality" refers to those events that we did not experience in the past but that we think are real. For example, I have no experience of dinosaurs but I think that dinosaurs existed at some point in the past. Dinosaurs would be a part of this "hidden reality".

Magnus Anderson is a graduate of the school of KT.
He had a falling out with the moron Satyr when he claimed focus was indifference, and Satyr corrected him, saying no actually focus is focused care.
He took umbrage at the correction.
He then insulted Satyr and left.
Not that Satyr does not deserve to be insulted...but this time he didn't even instigate, which was ironic.
I watched and had a laugh.

With young males one must tread carefully.
Their egos are still forming - untested, fragile, burning hot, like molten lava flowing, destroying everything in its wake.....gradually cooling towards old age.
Will it reach the sea, in a final burst of steam, or will it freeze in its course into a wonderful stone?
What final shape will it take?
Depends on the events....that interact with it. Their force and its force.

andy wrote:My argument is that there is no such a thing as absolute certainty. In other words, there is no synthetic proposition that is infallible (i.e. that cannot turn out to be wrong.)

jesus, andy, you've forgotten about rene already? pull yourself together man. now you know you are absolutely sure you exist, because to be able to doubt that, you'd have to exist to do the doubting.

that's where it all begins... from that single, absolute certainty. what you do with philosophy after that is your business. me, i believe there are absolutes; there are things that are absolutely true, absolutely false, and absolutely uncertain. our problem is, none of us can agree on what the fucking word 'absolute' even means.

something forum philosophers need to be aware of is that we all have individual rough systems of thought with/through which we understand certain philosophical vernacular to be meaningful. this means we have worked out and organized various concepts, relationships between concepts, and the meanings of these things, in a coherent way that provides us with our own orientation. when we begin communicating, we eventually use a same philosophical term, and that's when problems arise. it isn't the case that we don't understand what the term means... because we do.. in the way that it works in our own closed system of thinking. it's rather in the way the other guy uses the word and what that word means to him, that is difficult to become oriented with.

what if none of us are wrong? think of the essential concepts each of us have that make up our own systems of thought, as axioms, if you will. those axioms don't get violated unless we change the way we personally define the words and concepts we use. so, if someone says 'you're wrong when you say things have power' or 'things are power', you don't have a single instance of error necessarily, because that theory or concept might have a place in a larger system of thought that justifies it. it's the clashing of sets of concepts that causes problems, not always individual concepts.

i could type up a post about why i think things 'are' power that was so long, i almost guarantee you wouldn't read it. likewise, i'm sure you could do the same... and i probably wouldn't read it, either.  

andy wrote:That would be your word against Schopenhauer's word.

i think i could take arthur.

You have your views, another has his own....I really have no way of judging which is right and which wrong. One says life emanates, another that the cosmos is a survival pit, all trying to maintain themselves and grow, to become bigger and to reproduce, other say all loves itself into existence and maintains itself through love of self....
The more I go in one direction I stop to consider the other's positions....all making good points.
A great nihilistic sage taught me that all is a social construct. How we were raised determines what we consider rational.
There is no way to tell, as we are trapped in our social upbringing.
So what's left for us to do but make concessions and put it to a vote?

For four years this guy is right, then the next four years another guy is right.
Majority wins.
No conflicts, no violence, no arguments.

Reality shifting with the tides of popular vote.
Or so I think.
I guess what I'm asking is "why can't we just get along?".

Absolute= indivisible, immutable, whole, one, singularity.
All else are expressions of psychological attitudes based on precedent.
An expression of convictions...certainty relating to a standard.
Since the standards is not shared, the certainty shifts in meaning from individual to individual.

Absolute certainty is not an absolute.
You must show me something indivisible, immutable, whole, ...a singularity.
Do not tell me, do not use the word 'absolute' as evidence of an absolute....do not passionately share how convinced you are, what unquestionable probability you have for a theory, a possibility.
These are in your head.
I place the standards outside all our heads - I objectify it.
Point to something we can all perceive that is immutable, indivisible, whole, eternal, perfect.....a one.
One one.
Don't tell me, show me.

ZA wrote:jesus, andy, you've forgotten about rene already?

It took my a while to realize that what you mean by "rene" is Rene Descartes. Are you saying that his "I think therefore I am" contradicts my position that there are no synthetic propositions that are infallible? You think the proposition "I exist" is infallible?

now you know you are absolutely sure you exist, because to be able to doubt that, you'd have to exist to do the doubting.

If you accept that a person doubted their existence at some point in the past, it follows, by definition, that that person existed at some point in the past. However, it is not absolutely certain that that person doubted their existence at some point in the past. So the conclusion that that person existed at some point in the past, although absolutely certain in the tautological sense, is not absolutely certain in the empirical sense.

Take a proposition such as "I saw a white swan at some point in the past". This proposition represents something apparent i.e. something that has been observed in the past. How do you verify the veracity of such a proposition if not by memory? And memory isn't infallible. You cannot verify it by observation because observation is something that occurs and never ever happens again.

me, i believe there are absolutes; there are things that are absolutely true, absolutely false, and absolutely uncertain.

I believe in absolutes too. I believe that propositions such as 2 + 2 = 4 are absolutely true in the tautological sense. There is no arguing against that.

our problem is, none of us can agree on what the fucking word 'absolute' even means.

But we do agree that every synthetic proposition can turn out to be wrong? For example, you agree that what we think we observed in the past might not be true?

something forum philosophers need to be aware of is that we all have individual rough systems of thought with/through which we understand certain philosophical vernacular to be meaningful. this means we have worked out and organized various concepts, relationships between concepts, and the meanings of these things, in a coherent way that provides us with our own orientation. when we begin communicating, we eventually use a same philosophical term, and that's when problems arise. it isn't the case that we don't understand what the term means... because we do.. in the way that it works in our own closed system of thinking. it's rather in the way the other guy uses the word and what that word means to him, that is difficult to become oriented with.

In other words, it isn't the case that we do not understand how we use a term. Rather, it is the case that we do not understand how other people use that term.

so, if someone says 'you're wrong when you say things have power' or 'things are power', you don't have a single instance of error necessarily, because that theory or concept might have a place in a larger system of thought that justifies it.

I did not say, and I am not saying, that your statement that "things are power" is wrong. What I said, and what I am saying, is that it is an unconventional use of language. I am simply saying that it is different from how we normally use English language.

andy wrote:Are you saying that his "I think therefore I am" contradicts my position that there are no synthetic propositions that are infallible? You think the proposition "I exist" is infallible?

cogito ergo sum is a peculiar proposition. it's synthetic, but it's also a priori... though not in the kantian synthetic a priori way. the problem is not with the predicate 'exist', but the 'subject'. it shows that something exists, absolutely, because if something didn't exist, there would be no question in the first place. so the problem lies in what to call this 'subject', and this subject, whatever it is, must certainly exist. there is something that exists.

andy wrote:If you accept that a person doubted their existence at some point in the past, it follows, by definition, that that person existed at some point in the past. However, it is not absolutely certain that that person doubted their existence at some point in the past. So the conclusion that that person existed at some point in the past, although absolutely certain in the tautological sense, is not absolutely certain in the empirical sense.

that's a crafty little argument... your logic is sound. impressive.

let me ask you this: would you even be able to present this argument if what you are saying is true? the same conditions exists for you as well as the person who doubted their existence in the past. therefore, you couldn't be sure that you would be able to doubt the person existed in the past, as you, yourself, couldn't be sure that you existed a moment ago to present the argument.

furthermore, i couldn't be sure i experienced your presentation of the argument as i too would be subject to the same circumstances. there is an infinite regress here or a collapse into pure solipsism.

andy wrote:Take a proposition such as "I saw a white swan at some point in the past". This proposition represents something apparent i.e. something that has been observed in the past. How do you verify the veracity of such a proposition if not by memory? And memory isn't infallible. You cannot verify it by observation because observation is something that occurs and never ever happens again.

this is VERY radical empiricism, but perfectly legal. hume ended up at a similiar position, finally concluding that the self is just a bundle of perceptions and impressions that are only immediately certain. the memory of something offers no proof of anything other than the immediate ideas present to the mind. in strictly empirical terms, i'm no longer sure i experienced a cup of coffee five minutes ago... only the idea i have in my mind that is given by memory.

but what kind of pragmatic use of such a position could i make? can you imagine a world full of people who stood by the principle? what ramifications would it have in criminal law, for instance?

no, your honor, that wasn't me on camera stealing the car, because i didn't exist then.

andy wrote:But we do agree that every synthetic proposition can turn out to be wrong? For example, you agree that what we think we observed in the past might not be true?

i'm undecided. have you seen kant's synthetic a priori propositions? there is some real controversy over whether or not they can exist. philosophers have been arguing for centuries over these. they must not be so easily dismissed, then.

I think...I exist.

"I" is not an absolute....neither is 'think' neither is 'exist'.
All these are fluid, divisible, mutable.....and yet together they form an absolute?
Magic.

No immutable, indivisible, whole outside your head.
The fluid collapsed into a thing, a singularity.

My entire life and what preceded it and made me possible, all reduced to a word = 'I' or 'self'....and an idea in my head held as complete, in its vagueness.
Like a Polaroid is a static image of a fluid experience....transferred to plastic.....which is also deteriorating as I hold it as a solid, three dimensional picture, representing an image of an event that occurred a minute ago, and is no more.
I call it absolute.
But it's a representation of a fluid state. It is also fluid...as plastic is not immutable, eternal, whole, indivisible.
An idea. A snapshot. A representation.
All real.....

Where is this absolute?
In my mind.
Certainty, absolute conviction.
A = A

unfortunately, the human brain is psychologistically calibrated to reason in terms of absolutes... and by absolutes i mean values such as 'true' and 'false'. the very nature of reasoning operates with a view to these values, and aristotle made this official in his rules of formal logic. he didn't 'invent' them... he 'understood' them, and put them into formal, symbolic terms.

if you cannot understand what i have explained so many times already- that these logical rules of reasoning need not mirror the world in order to be real and exist- i can't help you. you are stuck on this notion that because we experience change in the world, nothing, not even the structures by which we reason, can be absolute. this misses the point entirely.

everything you say IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE, ABSOLUTELY. it isn't kinda true or false, or a little true or false. what you argue either is the case, or is not the case. what is immutable, if you insist on using this as a definition for 'absolute', is this quality of reasoning, because it is built in the very essence of our thinking. you cannot not utilize these binary operators (true/false) when reasoning.

i'm not saying everything is not changing- though i wouldn't ever say everything is changing because i couldn't possibly know that by experiencing things in the world- i'm simply saying that there is a fact of reasoning that involves the recognition and utilization of values that are absolute, and that without them, reasoning wouldn't even be possible.

no heraclituses, no quantum physicists, and no zen buddhists will ever change this fact.

really dude. this is what it would look like:

joe: there are no absolutes.

bob: is that statement absolutely true?

joe: no, because the statement doesn't mean now what it meant when i said it.

bob: so it was absolutely true then, but absolutely false now. then i should absolutely disregard it?

joe: okay fine. can i say 'the only absolute is that there are no absolutes?'

bob: absolutely not, because it's absolute nonsense.

joe: let's get drunk, what do you say?

bob: sounds like an absolutely excellent idea. i've got some absolute vodka in the car. brb.

ZA wrote:it shows that something exists, absolutely, because if something didn't exist, there would be no question in the first place.

Well, what you're saying is that if you accept the proposition "subject thinks" that you're also implicitly accepting the proposition "subject exists". It's like saying that if you accept that some animal is a frog that you're also implicitly accepting that that animal is an amphibian. It's classic deductive logic. However, none of that shows that these propositions are empirically true. In other words, it is possible that the subject does not exist and that the subject does not think.

there is something that exists.

The question is what this something is. If you say "something exists" and you want this statement to have some kind of meaning it must be of the form "something specific exists". What does it mean to say that something exists? It means that something else does not exist. "There is only a red apple on my table" implies "There is no green apple on my table". And what does it mean to say that something does not exist? It means that something else exists. "There is no apple on my table" can be used in conjuction with "There is only an empty glass on my table". So when you say "I exist" and you want this statement to be rich in meaning then it must have the form "I exist in some specific form". For example, you might be saying that you're short, black, bald, etc. In reality, you might be none of these. In reality, you might be tall, white, long-haired, etc. Otherwise, the concepts of existence and non-existence make no sense.

let me ask you this: would you even be able to present this argument if what you are saying is true?

Yes. It is possible that I am not a human but an alien. It is possible that I do not think but merely talk. And so on.

the same conditions exists for you as well as the person who doubted their existence in the past. therefore, you couldn't be sure that you would be able to doubt the person existed in the past, as you, yourself, couldn't be sure that you existed a moment ago to present the argument.

furthermore, i couldn't be sure i experienced your presentation of the argument as i too would be subject to the same circumstances. there is an infinite regress here or a collapse into pure solipsism.

Not a single one of the following propositions is absolutely certain:

1. John doubted his existence at some point in the past
2. John existed at some point in the past
3. I doubted at some point in the past that John doubted his existence at some point in the past
4. I doubted at some point in the past that John existed at some point in the past
5. I existed at some point in the past
6. Zoot read my posts at some point in the past

Nonetheless, that does not mean I should not accept these propositions.

When I say "Tomorrow, it will rain" that does not mean it is not possible for this proposition to be wrong. I accept it, I act upon it, I hope it will not turn out to be wrong . . . but I do not think it is impossible for it to turn out to be wrong.

I think that you're confusing personal conviction with absolute certainty.

this is VERY radical empiricism, but perfectly legal. hume ended up at a similiar position, finally concluding that the self is just a bundle of perceptions and impressions that are only immediately certain. the memory of something offers no proof of anything other than the immediate ideas present to the mind. in strictly empirical terms, i'm no longer sure i experienced a cup of coffee five minutes ago... only the idea i have in my mind that is given by memory.

but what kind of pragmatic use of such a position could i make? can you imagine a world full of people who stood by the principle? what ramifications would it have in criminal law, for instance?

The point is to show that the fact that propositions are not absolutely certain does not mean that we cannot believe them. That's the practical application of this position.