Re: Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:54 am
You just aren't getting the point here, pun intended. Just because it is called "intuitionist mathematics" does not automatically mean everyone intuitively knows what it means. In fact, I bet very few people on this forum knows exactly what that is without searching for it and reading up on it for a few days. Can you admit this simple fact? And then can you admit that makes it more abstract for the people who are not yet familiar with it? You frequently use these terms and pretend like their meanings are self-evident but that is not even close to being accurate. Somehow you have managed to abstract away from the simple meaning of "abstraction" here. And if I were you right now, I would accuse, "you are evil colonial imperialist by assuming the us vs. them language of "enemy" is correct language to use... now admit that you are evil so we can move on!" But I am not you, so I don't resort to such silly tactics.SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:04 amOh dear oh dear, what's more "post-modern" than calling mathematics - which has it's complex layering and jargons - "post-modern" linguistic philosophy.AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:59 am But you rarely keep things at that level of imagery - rather you reference all sorts of mathematicians, complex mathematical terminology, the history of mathematics, etc. and thereby create many layers of concepts that I need to penetrate in order to figure out how you are employing those things and what your underlying point is. Each different concept I am not familiar with requires a Google search, and even then I may not figure out how exactly you are using the concept. That entire tendency is rife within "post-structural" linguistic philosophy, so I am not surprised or saying you are a strange case. In those circles, the hyper-abstract approach is perfectly normal and common.
Yet all the time I've been arguing for intuitionist mathematics, meaning idealist ontology which can be experienced intuitively, and against fragmentation of mathematics into post-modern language games of point-reductionism. Sure, to know your enemy you need know the language of the enemy. That does not mean that you agree with the language of the enemy. And by enemy I mean the whole paradigm of formalist school of mathematics, their post-modern and post-truth language games, their atomistic point-reductionism and absurd physicalism based on point-reductionism.
Why do you assume Teilhard is using "point" in the mathematically precise way you are interpreting it, or not considering the possibility that he maybe failed to anticipate masters of abstraction such as yourself coming along and using this math argument to tear down the spiritual reality he is pointing to with "Omega Point"? All of the above results from your decision to play games with yourself and see how much you can abstract away from who the living human being, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, was and what he was attempting to convey through the living essence of his philosophy-theology, which is that the progression of Spirit now moves from fragmentation towards harmony and we are all offered the opportunity to discern its beauty and goodness in full consciousness if we approach it with humility, good will, and discipline. But you clearly do not approach with any three of the latter, so you take the holistic meaning of his quote and turn it into another Lord of the Rings reference as always, yet again another example of classic SS abstracting away so as to avoid making an actual coherent argument.SS wrote:Yet, what could be more simple and elementary mathematical form than 'point'? The concept that Euclid defines in the 1st and 3rd definitions of Elementa? You just offer your usual rhetorical excuses to refuse to discuss, comprehend and know the meaning of 'point'. You have said that to be free, you need to know. If you don't know the meaning of 'point', but are being dragged in and dropping in the Omega point and insisting to drag whole of being with you, how can you be free, not-knowing???
Or if you think you know the meaning of point, let's hear it. Should not be too difficult, to define the meaning of such a simple thing?
You say: Christ is point at distance.. I did not start the geometric discussion, you and Cleric did with your visions and ideas of Teilhard's Omega point, so don't run away with purely abstract distancing of "living essence" into point at distance (by which you seem to mean that you are feeling currently dead inside?). Be a man worthy of your argumentative profession, stop evading when challenged, and defend your geometric argument in honest debate - or honestly admit your defeat to the Jury and renounce the form of Omega point, which stands accused in this court of spiritual and rational investigation.Ashvin wrote: I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard. His view is not nihilistic in the slightest. It may only become that way if you misinterpret the "Omega Point" to be some sort of Borg-like mechanization and homogenization of all living activity, which is then only existing in your biased interpretation of him. You made the same sort of argument against Cleric in the other thread, and I know with 100% certainty that his view (also Steiner's view) proposes nothing of the sort. Rather, they all propose that your bolded phrase above, which wants to remain in "mathematical cognition", is entirely insufficient. We need to move towards the living essence of Spirit and mathematical concepts are not that living essence. If we want to get a sense of the Spirit's living essence, we can just reflect on our own living activities and their meaning. And if we want to move further from that sense, we must work on developing higher cognition and spiritual sight. That is what Teilhard is suggesting and we see that in this quote:
Thank's... for making the prosecutors case even stronger. Not only more of the reductionist tripe of reducing whole of sentience to the single sense of vision, but also most perfect description of the archetypal Eye of Sauron going: superiority, superiority, superiority...Teilhard de Chardin wrote:Seeing. We might say that the whole Omega Point of life lies in that verb - if not ultimately, at least essentially. Fuller being is closer union: such is the kernel and conclusion of this book. But let us emphasize the point: union increases only through an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision. And that, doubtless, is why the history of the living world can be summarized as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen. After all, do we not judge the perfection of an animal, or the supremacy of a thinking being, by the penetration and synthetic power of their gaze? To try to see more and better is not a matter of whim or curiosity or self-indulgence. To see or to perish is the very condition laid upon everything that makes up the universe, by reason of the mysterious gift of existence. And this, in superior measure, is man's condition.
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (1930)