Addiction to Time as a Super-Structure

[Soul_of_Shu]

Since you can't read, I doubt there's much meaning to what you write, and I've stopped trying to guess what on Earth you might mean by "metamorphic progression, as your inability to read and write manifests only blindness to it.

If occasionally finding it a major challenge to decipher some of your whimsical ways with words is indicative of being unable to read, at times feeling like I've entered the world of Finnegans Wake, then I'm probably no better off than Ashvin

[AshvinP]

And that reflection is critical to understanding Cleric's original observations on "integration" which you attempted to deny validity.

The Strife with a specific obsevation passage on integration is not a denial validity, On the contrary, it is Love.

Strife without Love has no style, and vice versa, thus it becomes Boring.

There is no discontinuity from Plato to Hegel. Plato at his best is a master playwright. But no poet is at his best on every instance and utterance. The continuity from Boring Plato to Not-so boring Hegel is called "dialectic". But both still pale in comparison with antidialectics of Heraclitus, as also Heidegger felt.

Here we go again... we can't even get past the first sentence of your original response without coming across your denial of validity. The fact that you prefer to obfuscate and call it by anything aside from what it actually is does not change its substance,. and neither does the fact that you claim not to "believe" in substance.

Cleric: "As a matter of fact there's no such perspective of MAL which decides to 'split into parts'."
SS: "Yes there is such a pespective, it's called math."

this metamorphic progression

Since you can't read, I doubt there's much meaning to what you write, and I've stopped trying to guess what on Earth you might mean by "metamorphic progression, as your inability to read and write manifests only blindness to it.

What I mean by it is laid out in four-part essay called Metamorphoses of the Spirit. Perhaps you were on sabbatical when I posted them, so I can't blame you for not reading them. But, now that you know, and the deep meaning of that concept is absolutely critical to Cleric and my position on this topic, maybe you will consider reading them so you have a better understanding of what is meant by "metamorphic progression".

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=312

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=314

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I) - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=325

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II) - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=332

[SanteriSatama]

Since you can't read, I doubt there's much meaning to what you write, and I've stopped trying to guess what on Earth you might mean by "metamorphic progression, as your inability to read and write manifests only blindness to it.

If occasionally finding it a major challenge to decipher some of your whimsical ways with words is indicative of being unable to read, at times feeling like I've entered the world of Finnegans Wake, then I'm probably no better off than Ashvin

Gelassenheit of poetry and storytelling, which even the first reader does not comprehend as something crushed and fragmented into rational narrative, is a possible and perhaps even recommended way to read.

For better or worse, reading with good dose of ad hominem and then having some mutual tit for tat fun, nothing wrong and all wrong with that too. It has it's own pleasure.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Gelassenheit of poetry and storytelling, which even the first reader does not comprehend as something crushed and fragmented into rational narrative, is a possible and perhaps even recommended way to read.

For better or worse, reading with good dose of ad hominem and then having some mutual tit for tat fun, nothing wrong and all wrong with that too. It has it's own pleasure.

Sure, in this case the storytelling of a mischievous Trickster camped out along the route of the Hero's journey, intent on triggering the shadow, putting up random 'detour' signs that all lead to the funhouse at nearest carnival, where 'NO REFUNDS ~ Enter At Your Own Risk' is written at the entrance, wherein our earnest Hero perchance learns a lesson in how to read the signs.

[SanteriSatama]

Here we go again... we can't even get past the first sentence of your original response without coming across your denial of validity. The fact that you prefer to obfuscate and call it by anything aside from what it actually is does not change its substance,. and neither does the fact that you claim not to "believe" in substance.

Here we go again. I told you not to read with the lense of bivalent logic, but you can't help that, can you? The programming is still too tight.

Even if you metacognitively and rationally admit that European spirituality is not limited to bivalent logic, that admission is self-deception as long as the blood of your heart flows in it, and bivalent logic is what you embody and actualize.

What I mean by it is laid out in four-part essay called Metamorphoses of the Spirit. Perhaps you were on sabbatical when I posted them, so I can't blame you for not reading them. But, now that you know, and the deep meaning of that concept is absolutely critical to Cleric and my position on this topic, maybe you will consider reading them so you have a better understanding of what is meant by "metamorphic progression".

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=312

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=314

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I) - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=325

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II) - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=332

If you think that I protest against a definition, layed out in no matter in how many essays, you are in a sense correct and entitled to protest against my protest. But it does not matter at all what the definition is, as no definition can be actual and real process.

We start from expression, which flows and spills and stains from the pulsations of Heart, and let us not mistake heart as an stranger to and judgement against Evil either. How else could a heart actualize metamorphing spirit? Expression is open to interpretation, in which also definitions can have their time and place.

The English root of 'better' and 'best' is not 'good', it is 'bet'. A bet can go good and bad, it's supposed to do both. The Greek word 'category' comes from the verb 'to publicly accuse'. You made and played your bet with your question "would I", and then when you lost you weaseled by denying and accusing the "I" without separation with your categorizing bivalent logic, which oozes from your black heart.

In your first reading you might think that calling your heart black is an accusation, a category. On second though, reading this, you could reconsider that dark blackness is that which actually feels, has the power to crush and fall into itself in the pressure of becoming self-illuminating light. Integration which fragments into escaping light and bombards surfaces with particles of past.

Universe in a speck of light. Closing the eyes, peeling the skin, riding the wave, can you still externalize the the the theodicy, even if it was and is stuttetered "in the past" and now you are better, forgiven, and time is anew? How can you heal a crazy god, if you don't become that god, if you were not that god?!

[AshvinP]

Here we go again... we can't even get past the first sentence of your original response without coming across your denial of validity. The fact that you prefer to obfuscate and call it by anything aside from what it actually is does not change its substance,. and neither does the fact that you claim not to "believe" in substance.

Here we go again. I told you not to read with the lense of bivalent logic, but you can't help that, can you? The programming is still too tight.

Even if you metacognitively and rationally admit that European spirituality is not limited to bivalent logic, that admission is self-deception as long as the blood of your heart flows in it, and bivalent logic is what you embody and actualize.

What I mean by it is laid out in four-part essay called Metamorphoses of the Spirit. Perhaps you were on sabbatical when I posted them, so I can't blame you for not reading them. But, now that you know, and the deep meaning of that concept is absolutely critical to Cleric and my position on this topic, maybe you will consider reading them so you have a better understanding of what is meant by "metamorphic progression".

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=312

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=314

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I) - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=325

Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II) - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=332

If you think that I protest against a definition, layed out in no matter in how many essays, you are in a sense correct and entitled to protest against my protest. But it does not matter at all what the definition is, as no definition can be actual and real process.

We start from expression, which flows and spills and stains from the pulsations of Heart, and let us not mistake heart as an stranger to and judgement against Evil either. How else could a heart actualize metamorphing spirit? Expression is open to interpretation, in which also definitions can have their time and place.

The English root of 'better' and 'best' is not 'good', it is 'bet'. A bet can go good and bad, it's supposed to do both. The Greek word 'category' comes from the verb 'to publicly accuse'. You made and played your bet with your question "would I", and then when you lost you weaseled by denying and accusing the "I" without separation with your categorizing bivalent logic, which oozes from your black heart.

In your first reading you might think that calling your heart black is an accusation, a category. On second though, reading this, you could reconsider that dark blackness is that which actually feels, has the power to crush and fall into itself in the pressure of becoming self-illuminating light. Integration which fragments into escaping light and bombards surfaces with particles of past.

Universe in a speck of light. Closing the eyes, peeling the skin, riding the wave, can you still externalize the the the theodicy, even if it was and is stuttetered "in the past" and now you are better, forgiven, and time is anew? How can you heal a crazy god, if you don't become that god, if you were not that god?!

If my original criticism (I can admit when I am, in fact, making criticisms) of your use of abstract math to critique (or whatever you want to call it) Cleric's assertion of a living spiritual reality re: integration, then my current criticism of your post above is that times 100. I hope you can follow that math. Somehow, against all betting odds, you still don't realize that you are only dealing in abstractions, no matter how "poetic" those abstractions sound to you. That is not surprising, of course, given that is also only what Derrida and "post-structural" philosophers you admire were dealing in. They were also impetuously stubborn and thought themselves above any sort of coherent responses to their critics. Your abstractions are so removed from any concrete reality that they simply refuse to be enriched by the Spirit. What is the purpose of such abstractions? As always, it is to avoid responsibility for thoughtful contemplation, as evidenced by your "protest" against reading essays which reveal the meaning of the metamorphic process that you could not guess and are now sidestepping rather clumsily in every single post.

I guess we can just agree that we find the other person to be saying absolutely nothing of value or insight to this discussion and leave it there.

[SanteriSatama]

Use of abstract math to critique

You just assume and insist that by some objective and eternal necessity, math is always and without exception and eternally abstract and nothing else. Without any rational or other arguments to back up your dogmatic belief.

I say you can't read, because you don't read nor show any respect to what I'm trying to say, various ways and styles, but just keep on going "abstact abstract abstract..."

Let's try again, rolling the Sisyphos stone of meaningful communication to the top of the hill, as the Absurd "hero" of Sartre. Let's start from something very basic:

How do you separate basic waveform from "bipolar disorder" as the white coats say, or "Swing of the Gods", as the poet Eino Leino calls this? The very thing is that we bipolars don't experience waveform as anything "abstract", but EXTREMELY actual swinging of moods and energies. Abstraction is for the white coats behind is walls of empathy barrier, their separation and disassociation, their faux rationalism, formalism and materialism which is the only thing that allows them to externalize and dilute math into something "abstract". White coats are no help, so how do you self-heal the actualizing extremes of wave-form math? By imagining other related geometries to experiment and experience, less linearry repetitive... I could tell stories when I went with the slinky toy...

Sartre knows his "hero", and when he contemplates Sisyphos back down in the valley, deciding to start a new climb and roll, and says "we must imagine Sisyphos happy", he's speaking healing words.

How do you separate music and mathematics, without doing horrible violence? Plato the Monster banned most scales from his Politeia for being too sensual, violating his idea of "harmony of spheres", He was as anti-jazz, anti-rock as could be. Not because he was naive about music and math, but because he was not naive but a genuine authoritarian monster, not dissimilar to Inquisitor of Ivan's story. And your insistence on "abstract math" makes you worse than Plato.

[Simon Adams]

The whole of western philosophy is a “series of footnotes to Plato” (Whitehead), but most people just haven’t realised it yet

Also to be fair, The Republic was like his dialogues in that I don’t think anyone knows what his actual views on music and the arts were. Socrates was of course executed for his negative influence on the virtues of the young, so Plato’s banning of music and the arts in his theoretical perfect state because of it’s impact on the virtues could be read in different ways.

That’s just from my fairly ignorant understanding of it, but either way, to use maths in an abstract way (despite it’s musical and foundational reality), Plato was 100% genius and 0% monster….

[AshvinP]

Use of abstract math to critique

You just assume and insist that by some objective and eternal necessity, math is always and without exception and eternally abstract and nothing else. Without any rational or other arguments to back up your dogmatic belief.

I say you can't read, because you don't read nor show any respect to what I'm trying to say, various ways and styles, but just keep on going "abstact abstract abstract..."

Let's try again, rolling the Sisyphos stone of meaningful communication to the top of the hill, as the Absurd "hero" of Sartre. Let's start from something very basic:

Yes, let's do that. What is truly basic here is that the meaning of an "abstraction" is a symbol which points to an underlying Reality that is not exhausted by the symbol. If you are claiming that the mathematical concepts you employ in argument are not symbols but are actually the things-in-themselves in their totality, then we have much more basic issues to sort out than anything you say in the rest of your latest post. Why should I attempt to comprehend anything else you are saying if you cannot grasp this basic meaning of "abstraction" which your entire mathematical argument relies on (whether you realize it or not)? I shouldn't and I don't. I also know that I am not really mischaracterizing what you are doing, because you do it every single time anything slightly related to Western theism is involved, including various exchanges with Scott who clearly grasps the mathematical arguments better than I do and tried to point out the same thing to you.

[SanteriSatama]

What is truly basic here is that the meaning of an "abstraction" is a symbol which points to an underlying Reality that is not exhausted by the symbol. If you are claiming that the mathematical concepts you employ in argument are not symbols but are actually the things-in-themselves in their totality, then we have much more basic issues to sort out than anything you say in the rest of your latest post.

OVERFLOW OF RIGHTEOUS WRATH:

Yes, that is the basic issue, from which the rest flows. How can it be so hard to get through that I subscribe to intuitionist philosophy of mathematics, and strongly oppose formalism?

Formalism, e.g. and especially axiomatic set theory: Mathematics is just post-modern language game of logical if-then structures derived from arbitrary and abstract axiomatics.

And further, formalism goes de facto hand in hand with materialism and physicalism as the theory of mathematics implied by contemporary mathematical physics.

Intuitionism: The ontology of mathematics is intuitive and as such, the idealist ontology cannot be exhausted by construction of any mathematical language.

Further, my own up to date approach to intuitionis-idealist philosophy of mathematics is much more process philosophical than that of Brouwer or other classical intuitionists. A marriage of classical intuitionism, Whitehead's point-free process philosophy and development of computation theory with major temporal implications of undecidability of Halting problem with Curry-Howard correspondence etc.

If you seriously want to argue that in essence mathematics is just post-modern language game of abstract symbols, and by association for materialism and physicalism, be my guest and let's have that debate where I promise to beat your position to pulp. But before any honest debate is possible, you must let go of your lawyerly tricksterism and dishonesty, and admit that I together with intuitionist and process philosophers do have a different position and philosophy which you need to listen and comprehend very carefully, in order to be able to steelman your case for abstract language games of formalism and denial of idealist ontology of mathematics with your post-modern sofistry of a dishonest and deeply misguided lawyer arguing from blind self-deception.


NEXT STAGE:

Concept is not same as symbol, and poetry and story-telling is not same as conceptual language. Each of those is a very different linguistic approach to meaning. And as meaning can't be fully exhausted by any means of language, we apply multitude / variety of linguistic strategies, and perhaps also other means to conway meaning.

And oh boy, you are a Heavy One. Talking with you is like trying to move a mountain. But don't worry, I do have faith, and you must imagine me happy doing this.