Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
mind the Mind
02-24-2018, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 02-24-2018 07:04 PM by Ontical.)
Post: #31
An understanding of reality and or experience requires language and language (which does not have to be spoken, or written) can refer to itself - therefore it is very likely that a theory of language may fall into an erroneous theory of narcissism, or the phenomenon of being able to refer to itself and thus extend itself, replicate and multiplication of itself through realisation/actuality of potentials.

Understanding the universe as mind is to transfer the atoms of language into the atoms of the universe - but we eventually realise that we must be under erasure when it comes to atomistic subjectivity - we are instead cut into a track, not a thing.

Therefore, a representation of a ‘thing’ is produced by matter and not an image of the mind, thought cannot be placed into its usual category according to distinctions of interior/exterior/subject/object as thing/place are really tracks-place Trace.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2018, 01:33 AM
Post: #32
Matter as noumenal catalyst doesn't explain reality's comprehensibility or answer the problem of induction. The track's cut by something deeper than matter.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2018, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 02-25-2018 02:27 AM by Ontical.)
Post: #33
A track is not a thing nor does it require quiddity to explain it and as for the problem of induction, contingency has to be seen as just as primary a process as necessity is - production for the sake of production takes place in the primary process and so does not unfold at the level of experience and cannot be comprehended by a subject, in fact, all bearers of subjectivity simply dissolve back into primary processes. We are instead talking in terms of haecceities - immanence is not immanent to substance, immanence is substance, we do not derive time from movement, time produces movement - matter is intensive and self-producing, the production of production for production sake.

Tracks are the result of differentiations, a result of the collapse of ‘philosophies of the subject’ I.e. the notion that meaning is metaphysically grounded in a subject who have privileged epistemic access - either through post-Kantian transcendental egos, Heideggerian existential authenticity posited by existentially ‘being-there’ or ‘no private languages’ in Wittgenstein.

Gadamer later said understanding requires historical context, tradition, development of ideas and contexts, which begin to unravel blind spots and no fixed essences - Saussure pushes this further with diachronic and synchronic aspects of language as a system of difference. We of course have to consider the scepticism of Nietzsche about what he calls ‘English psychologists’ (meaning Hume) in that we are not fully conscious subjects who have been the same since the dawn of man, but that we transfer our own idiosyncratic views of our own time and way of acting and thinking throughout history, but more than this, our psychophysiology is clearly difficult to know, we mostly embody ideas, cultures and norms and self-mastery is either impossible, or if it does happen ever, it is not for long.

Language produces the speaking subject.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2018, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 02-25-2018 02:08 PM by waechter418.)
Post: #34
The reality of the feedback-mechanism of the intellect and the reality of Self are incompatible.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2018, 04:05 PM
Post: #35
(02-25-2018 02:12 AM)Ontical Wrote:  A track is not a thing nor does it require quiddity to explain it and as for the problem of induction, contingency has to be seen as just as primary a process as necessity is - production for the sake of production takes place in the primary process and so does not unfold at the level of experience and cannot be comprehended by a subject, in fact, all bearers of subjectivity simply dissolve back into primary processes. We are instead talking in terms of haecceities - immanence is not immanent to substance, immanence is substance, we do not derive time from movement, time produces movement - matter is intensive and self-producing, the production of production for production sake.

Tracks are the result of differentiations, a result of the collapse of ‘philosophies of the subject’ I.e. the notion that meaning is metaphysically grounded in a subject who have privileged epistemic access - either through post-Kantian transcendental egos, Heideggerian existential authenticity posited by existentially ‘being-there’ or ‘no private languages’ in Wittgenstein.

Gadamer later said understanding requires historical context, tradition, development of ideas and contexts, which begin to unravel blind spots and no fixed essences - Saussure pushes this further with diachronic and synchronic aspects of language as a system of difference. We of course have to consider the scepticism of Nietzsche about what he calls ‘English psychologists’ (meaning Hume) in that we are not fully conscious subjects who have been the same since the dawn of man, but that we transfer our own idiosyncratic views of our own time and way of acting and thinking throughout history, but more than this, our psychophysiology is clearly difficult to know, we mostly embody ideas, cultures and norms and self-mastery is either impossible, or if it does happen ever, it is not for long.

Language produces the speaking subject.

Metaphysically privileging phenomenal experience as a primitive sounds even stupider than epistemically privileging the subject to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2018, 01:19 AM
Post: #36
Mind can be viewed as a condensation of Consciousness – a microcosm that relates the macrocosm. In such case macrocosm is the inter/extrapolation space (sphere) of microcosms.

“The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.” (Liber Al vel Legis)
Khabs = matter
Khu = energy, light

"What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses" (Einstein)


The relativity theory appeared at the same time as “Liber Al vel Legis” (also known as “Book of the Law”). Both brought about profound changes in the way we conceive and handle energy & matter, consciousness & mind.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2018, 09:21 AM
Post: #37
goood
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The mind of a perfectionist & when does it stop? youdontwanna 14 640 03-19-2018 07:06 AM
Last Post: NewAgePrincess
  Mind Body Problem Ontical 44 1,942 08-12-2017 12:12 PM
Last Post: Cube
  Key feature to realise about the mind. Woah93 4 833 10-27-2014 06:08 PM
Last Post: IllusionalCreation
  How our imagination can convince our mind and body of fictional things Harvey 12 2,661 01-16-2013 02:14 AM
Last Post: Grin
  The Human Mind United States of America 27 3,396 01-15-2013 02:28 AM
Last Post: Grin

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)