The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

If we look at philosophy today one is blinded by the sheer number of actual philosophies that exist. The existence of one philosophy inevitably fractates into separate sub-schools and in a simultaneous respect that same "original" philosophy in turn manifests a dual polar counterpart.

This nature of continual fractation, or flux, of philosophies appears at a much higher rate amidst philosophical premises where materiality is it's core axiom or at least one of them. This nature of materiality by nature is summed up under the nature of relativity for the nature of the material is strictly a flux of continually relating particles.

While these myriad of philosophies that emphasize materiallity appear to flourish are we strictly just observing a continual destruction of knowledge through the continual application of limits?

To limit philosophy to any form of strict materiality is fundamentally an abstraction that most materialists/relativists seek to avoid as the philosophies they promote are merely forms of fractal individuation from a group.

Has the emphasis on Relativity as the sole axiom of truth become a philosophical disease, for in the pursuit of symmetry the observation of continual flux at first glance appears to erradicate this notion that any form of "unity" or "truth" is to be found at the core of the philosophies. The problem occurs that in observing a statement such as this, one observes a stable and continuous abstraction that does not change (similiar in both form and function to the platonic forms).

Is it time for philosophy to re-synthesize itself into something new?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Nick_A »

Hello Eodnhoj7

You seem to be referring to what I have come to believe as the problem of the emphasis on fragmentation over wholeness. If this is what you refer to you like me are in a minority since the results of technology influences people to worship fragmentation.

But there is an underground of intelligent and spiritually sensitive people who understand the problem and the dangers it presents

Are you familiar with Dr. Basarab Nicolescu and his work with CIRET and Transdisciplinarity? If you are, you are IMO one of the fortunate few. Consider:

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm
After reading Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, it is hard to imagine how any thinking person could retreat to the old, safe, comfortable conceptual framework. Taking a series of ideas that would be extremely thought-provoking even when considered one by one, the Romanian quantum physicist Basarab Nicolescu weaves them together in a stunning vision, this manifesto of the twenty-first century, so that they emerge as a shimmering, profoundly radical whole.

Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.

Transdisciplinarity “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline,” and its aim is the unity of knowledge together with the unity of our being: “Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.” (44) Nicolescu points out the danger of self-destruction caused by modernism and increased technologization and offers alternative ways of approaching them, using a transdisciplinary approach that propels us beyond the either/or thinking that gave rise to the antagonisms that produced the problems in the first place. The logic of the included middle permits “this duality [to be] transgressed by the open unity that encompasses both the universe and the human being.” (56). Thus, approaching problems in a transdisciplinary way enables one to move beyond dichotomized thinking, into the space that lies beyond……………………………………….
Here is the CIRET home page

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

As you can see the aim is for gifted specialists from various fields to come together in the common purpose of experiencing the higher level of reality within which they exist as a unified higher whole. It my not be popular but for those drawn to the conscious experience of a higher level of reality which reconciles fragmentation, such organizations are really priceless.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:55 pm Are you familiar with Dr. Bastard Nicolescu and his work with CIRET and Transdisciplinarity?
Are you sure that Dr. Nicolescu can claim to be a legitimate authority in this field? For some reason, I have misgivings.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:14 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:55 pm Are you familiar with Dr. Bastard Nicolescu and his work with CIRET and Transdisciplinarity?
Are you sure that Dr. Nicolescu can claim to be a legitimate authority in this field? For some reason, I have misgivings.
Basarab Nicolescu is a Theoretical physicist and philosopher; a Researcher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), University of Paris 6, France; a Professor at the Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; a Member of the Romanian Academy; the President-Founder of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research and Studies (CIRET), a non-profit organization (161 members from 26 countries); Founder and Director of the "Transdisciplinarity" Series, Rocher Editions, Monaco and of the "Science and Religion" Series, Curtea Veche Publishing House, Bucharest.

A specialist in the theory of elementary particles, Basarab Nicolescu is the author of more than one hundred articles in leading international scientific journals, has made numerous contributions to science anthologies and participated in several dozens French radio and multimedia documentaries on science. Basarab Nicolescu is a major advocate of the transdisciplinary reconciliation between Science and the Humanities, Science and Religion and Science and Spirituality. He has published many articles on transdisciplinarity in journals in USA, France, Romania, Italy, United Kingdom, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Japan. His books include: Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, State University of New York (SUNY) Press, New York, 2002; Nous, la particule et le monde, Rocher, Monaco, 2002 (2nd edition); Science, Meaning and Evolution - The Cosmology of Jacob Boehme, Parabola Books, New York, 1991. He edited the book Transdisciplinarity - Theory and Practice, Hampton Press, USA, 2008. Web site: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/Notice/BNTitre.html.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:23 pm
Bastard Nicolescu is a Theoretical......
We can all be experts theoretically, Nick.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Impenitent »

Harbal wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:33 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:23 pm
Bastard Nicolescu is a Theoretical......
We can all be experts theoretically, Nick.
everyone is an expert in reading their own handwriting...

-Imp
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Dubious »

Impenitent wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:15 am
Harbal wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:33 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:23 pm
Bastard Nicolescu is a Theoretical......
We can all be experts theoretically, Nick.
everyone is an expert in reading their own handwriting...

-Imp
Tried that! It didn't always work. Too much going on to figure out what I actually meant.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by -1- »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:06 pm Is it time for philosophy to re-synthesize itself into something new?
No, not at all.

All philosophy is a repetition of itself. Human wisdom is fininte, capacity to be wise is finite, and has its limits cut out for us. We need to assimilate wisdom in a lifetime, and that span of time has been a constant of between 50-90 years of thought in a person's life.

I would not say we are fracting; in my opinion we are repeating. Crystalline memory had been termed by Kierkegaard as "recall"; the elusive nature of the real world, defined by Descartes, had been intuited by Plato in the parable of the cave wall's images; Einstein's theory of Relativity had been precognized in the language by such expressions as "cousin", "great-grand mother", etc.

In my own personal history of thinking, I think I had come up with about seven major philosophical discoveries that must have had quite a literature prior to my "instantaneous insight" experiences. My advantage, or rather, my pleasure, came from the fact that I had no or very little philosophical training, and thus the whole skid and caboodle came in a journey of discovery and self-discovery.

Philosophy seems to be fracting; but it is an optical illusion. One only ought to open his or her eyes to the fact that Hume's description of Passions is a direct predecessor of Maslow's Pyramid of Needs, that Hobbes' Natural Order is a complete mistake by some ineffectual thinker (plenty of parallel to it in all the ages of man), that Kant's Categorical Imperative was a stab in the dark at solving the morality riddle like those of of other ethics philosophies, to see that human wisdom repeats because that wisdom, in availability for analysis and mental assimilation, in comprehended size, in complexity that can be handled, and in general acceptabilty is a limited set, and we can't break through those limits.

In my opinion there are three major break-throughs in working and workable thought that likely hadn't been discovered priorly in man's history: the neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory, Einstein's theory of relativity (my earlier allusion to it was meant to be a joke), and Quantum Mechanics.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

-1- wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:06 pm Is it time for philosophy to re-synthesize itself into something new?
No, not at all.

All philosophy is a repetition of itself. Human wisdom is fininte, capacity to be wise is finite, and has its limits cut out for us. We need to assimilate wisdom in a lifetime, and that span of time has been a constant of between 50-90 years of thought in a person's life.

I would not say we are fracting; in my opinion we are repeating. Crystalline memory had been termed by Kierkegaard as "recall"; the elusive nature of the real world, defined by Descartes, had been intuited by Plato in the parable of the cave wall's images; Einstein's theory of Relativity had been precognized in the language by such expressions as "cousin", "great-grand mother", etc.

I would agree with these points. What we understand of "cause and effect" is strictly "causality" continually reflecting as a logistic memory. Repetition is structure, we see this within geometry through the repetition of points. I have no argument against this because, generally speaking, we are on the same page.

In my own personal history of thinking, I think I had come up with about seven major philosophical discoveries that must have had quite a literature prior to my "instantaneous insight" experiences. My advantage, or rather, my pleasure, came from the fact that I had no or very little philosophical training, and thus the whole skid and caboodle came in a journey of discovery and self-discovery.

Philosophy seems to be fracting; but it is an optical illusion.

This is where I disagree as an optical illusion is a reality in itself. It is the highest and fullest form of reality? No, not at all. I will expand upon this point further though, for the sake of clarity, with an example:

A person hallucinates, as in see's something someone else does not see. This axiom in turn affects the person's behavior and set's off a chain of behaviors. The person may have to be hospitalized or may be more giving and generous. Either way the person acts in a manner which forms the surrounding world, which in turn forms further axioms from which this person and other people affect the world. The degree of reality within the "axiom" this person observed is irrelevant, what is real regardless of argument is that their is an "axiom".

To observe the world as fractating, in turn inevitably means (in separate respects and degrees) that the world is fractating. Which leads me to my point. You observe that philosophy is fractating. You rationalize it as a deficiency in truth or illusion. Yet you observe that the illusion exists none the less and in this respects it is forming reality. I am not trying to disagree with you for the sake of disagree with you (because we both agree that philosophy has a stable reflective holism to it).

I am disagreeing with you in the respect that this "stability" we both see has a dual element of "flux" (as evident through the fractating nature) adn this nature of "flux" seems to be emphasized in broader terms through the majority of philosophy being predicated on a strict materiality (which by nature is "flux").





One only ought to open his or her eyes to the fact that Hume's description of Passions is a direct predecessor of Maslow's Pyramid of Needs, that Hobbes' Natural Order is a complete mistake by some ineffectual thinker (plenty of parallel to it in all the ages of man), that Kant's Categorical Imperative was a stab in the dark at solving the morality riddle like those of of other ethics philosophies, to see that human wisdom repeats because that wisdom, in availability for analysis and mental assimilation, in comprehended size, in complexity that can be handled, and in general acceptabilty is a limited set, and we can't break through those limits.


In my opinion there are three major break-throughs in working and workable thought that likely hadn't been discovered priorly in man's history: the neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory, Einstein's theory of relativity (my earlier allusion to it was meant to be a joke), and Quantum Mechanics.
Evolution is strictly a cyclic function in respect that the organism adapt's to the environment, however the environment must repeat itself (if everything repeats as you say) and in these respects nothing really evolves. I am not against evolution, however it is striclty a perspective that if rumor holds to be true is going out of style in certain countries. It is a philosophy founded during the industrial period when the nature of the environment itself was changing and by default a zietgiest was founded within the western spirit that not only opened itself to this way of thinking by may have caused it.

Relativity, as the observation of flux, was founded in Pre-socratics such as Heraclitus. Quantum Mechanics is a subgroup of Relativity in some respects, however it may be argue, as the observation of the "apeiron" or the "chaos" which was the substance from which "being" was formed. The pre-socratics observed this, specifically Anaximander (I recommend reading this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology) and it formed the basis for quantum mechanics (or at least aspect of it).

The problem occurs is that the apeiron is "infinite" and "boundless" so by default your emphasis on quantum mechanics as a modern root discipline/discovery by default places "wisdom" to have an infinite nature for consciousness by default has roots in this. This may be interpreted as you contradicting yourself.

I prefer to emphasize the point however that this reiterates the nature of philosophy as having dual elements of "stability" and "flux". The problem, and maybe I should have word this better, appears to be the emphasis on relativity/flux/materiality that philosophy has preoccupied itself with which in turn causes its to fractate more and more rather maintain a unity.

One could look at this from an academic standpoint that most fields and sciences can barely communicate with eachother without their being some form of misunderstanding (the above link by Nick gives further clarity to this).

My point is that everyone agrees that everything is "Relative" but noone agrees on the nature of "relativity".
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by -1- »

I would agree with these points. What we understand of "cause and effect" is strictly "causality" continually reflecting as a logistic memory. Repetition is structure, we see this within geometry through the repetition of points. I have no argument against this because, generally speaking, we are on the same page.
...
This is where I disagree as an optical illusion is a reality in itself. It is the highest and fullest form of reality? No, not at all. I will expand upon this point further though, for the sake of clarity, with an example:

A person hallucinates, as in see's something someone else does not see. This axiom in turn affects the person's behavior and set's off a chain of behaviors. The person may have to be hospitalized or may be more giving and generous. Either way the person acts in a manner which forms the surrounding world, which in turn forms further axioms from which this person and other people affect the world. The degree of reality within the "axiom" this person observed is irrelevant, what is real regardless of argument is that their is an "axiom".

To observe the world as fractating, in turn inevitably means (in separate respects and degrees) that the world is fractating. Which leads me to my point. You observe that philosophy is fractating. You rationalize it as a deficiency in truth or illusion. Yet you observe that the illusion exists none the less and in this respects it is forming reality. I am not trying to disagree with you for the sake of disagree with you (because we both agree that philosophy has a stable reflective holism to it).

I am disagreeing with you in the respect that this "stability" we both see has a dual element of "flux" (as evident through the fractating nature) adn this nature of "flux" seems to be emphasized in broader terms through the majority of philosophy being predicated on a strict materiality (which by nature is "flux").
...
Evolution is strictly a cyclic function in respect that the organism adapt's to the environment, however the environment must repeat itself (if everything repeats as you say) and in these respects nothing really evolves. I am not against evolution, however it is striclty a perspective that if rumor holds to be true is going out of style in certain countries. It is a philosophy founded during the industrial period when the nature of the environment itself was changing and by default a zietgiest was founded within the western spirit that not only opened itself to this way of thinking by may have caused it.

Relativity, as the observation of flux, was founded in Pre-socratics such as Heraclitus. Quantum Mechanics is a subgroup of Relativity in some respects, however it may be argue, as the observation of the "apeiron" or the "chaos" which was the substance from which "being" was formed. The pre-socratics observed this, specifically Anaximander (I recommend reading this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology) and it formed the basis for quantum mechanics (or at least aspect of it).

The problem occurs is that the apeiron is "infinite" and "boundless" so by default your emphasis on quantum mechanics as a modern root discipline/discovery by default places "wisdom" to have an infinite nature for consciousness by default has roots in this. This may be interpreted as you contradicting yourself.

I prefer to emphasize the point however that this reiterates the nature of philosophy as having dual elements of "stability" and "flux". The problem, and maybe I should have word this better, appears to be the emphasis on relativity/flux/materiality that philosophy has preoccupied itself with which in turn causes its to fractate more and more rather maintain a unity.

One could look at this from an academic standpoint that most fields and sciences can barely communicate with eachother without their being some form of misunderstanding (the above link by Nick gives further clarity to this).

My point is that everyone agrees that everything is "Relative" but noone agrees on the nature of "relativity".
I read this above, and I had three types of reactions, repeating and alternating in no particular order: either I did not understand what you said, or else I lacked the knowledge of facts referred to, or else I vehemently opposed in my mind what you said.

I will nevertheless read up on Anaximander, as you suggested, since I think he has an uber-cool name.

It was an unintentional and innocent, albeit fatal mistake to refer to Nick-A as an authority. I knew him on another website (at least a person by that same moniker) and he earned my utter and violently sickening disrespect and disesteem by posting the things he did. I eventually had to put him on an "ignore" function, the guy bugged me so much so. He violated almost every value I hold sacrosanct, even when he was not directly speaking to me. In other words, I can't stand him. If the person is different, then please disregard this bit.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Fractal Nature of Modern Philosophy.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

-1- wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:28 am
I would agree with these points. What we understand of "cause and effect" is strictly "causality" continually reflecting as a logistic memory. Repetition is structure, we see this within geometry through the repetition of points. I have no argument against this because, generally speaking, we are on the same page.
...
This is where I disagree as an optical illusion is a reality in itself. It is the highest and fullest form of reality? No, not at all. I will expand upon this point further though, for the sake of clarity, with an example:

A person hallucinates, as in see's something someone else does not see. This axiom in turn affects the person's behavior and set's off a chain of behaviors. The person may have to be hospitalized or may be more giving and generous. Either way the person acts in a manner which forms the surrounding world, which in turn forms further axioms from which this person and other people affect the world. The degree of reality within the "axiom" this person observed is irrelevant, what is real regardless of argument is that their is an "axiom".

To observe the world as fractating, in turn inevitably means (in separate respects and degrees) that the world is fractating. Which leads me to my point. You observe that philosophy is fractating. You rationalize it as a deficiency in truth or illusion. Yet you observe that the illusion exists none the less and in this respects it is forming reality. I am not trying to disagree with you for the sake of disagree with you (because we both agree that philosophy has a stable reflective holism to it).

I am disagreeing with you in the respect that this "stability" we both see has a dual element of "flux" (as evident through the fractating nature) adn this nature of "flux" seems to be emphasized in broader terms through the majority of philosophy being predicated on a strict materiality (which by nature is "flux").
...
Evolution is strictly a cyclic function in respect that the organism adapt's to the environment, however the environment must repeat itself (if everything repeats as you say) and in these respects nothing really evolves. I am not against evolution, however it is striclty a perspective that if rumor holds to be true is going out of style in certain countries. It is a philosophy founded during the industrial period when the nature of the environment itself was changing and by default a zietgiest was founded within the western spirit that not only opened itself to this way of thinking by may have caused it.

Relativity, as the observation of flux, was founded in Pre-socratics such as Heraclitus. Quantum Mechanics is a subgroup of Relativity in some respects, however it may be argue, as the observation of the "apeiron" or the "chaos" which was the substance from which "being" was formed. The pre-socratics observed this, specifically Anaximander (I recommend reading this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology) and it formed the basis for quantum mechanics (or at least aspect of it).

The problem occurs is that the apeiron is "infinite" and "boundless" so by default your emphasis on quantum mechanics as a modern root discipline/discovery by default places "wisdom" to have an infinite nature for consciousness by default has roots in this. This may be interpreted as you contradicting yourself.

I prefer to emphasize the point however that this reiterates the nature of philosophy as having dual elements of "stability" and "flux". The problem, and maybe I should have word this better, appears to be the emphasis on relativity/flux/materiality that philosophy has preoccupied itself with which in turn causes its to fractate more and more rather maintain a unity.

One could look at this from an academic standpoint that most fields and sciences can barely communicate with eachother without their being some form of misunderstanding (the above link by Nick gives further clarity to this).

My point is that everyone agrees that everything is "Relative" but noone agrees on the nature of "relativity".
I read this above, and I had three types of reactions, repeating and alternating in no particular order: either I did not understand what you said, or else I lacked the knowledge of facts referred to, or else I vehemently opposed in my mind what you said.

I will nevertheless read up on Anaximander, as you suggested, since I think he has an uber-cool name.


In simpler term's, as my emphasis on "clarity" can cause a paradoxical "lack of clarity", Anaximander's observation of the apeiron is one of, not "the", foundations for quantum mechanics (therefore relativity by extension). In this respect, even "new fields" are not completely "new".
Post Reply