Ontology Introduction

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by RCSaunders »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:05 pm ... are you open to the idea that the universe is mental rather than physical?
Absolutely not. Mind is the unique form of consciousness of human beings. Consciousness only exists as an attribute of living organisms and living organisms are physical entities. There is absolutely no evidence of life, consciousness, or minds independent of the physical organisms they are the life, consciousness, or minds of.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:05 pm Every phenomenon is the result of the union of three forces. They are known as the Trinity, the three Gunas, or other names. I appreciate them as affirming, denying, and reconciling
This is very strange. I know the source of your beliefs is some sort of the esoteric and occult, which is hardly philosophy (anymore than alchemy or astrology were sciences), but what you describe is oddly similar to the thesis–antithesis–synthesis dialectical method of Fichte, e.g. thesis (affirming), antithesis (denying), synthesis (reconciling). Both versions are nonsense.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:05 pm ... the ineffable living conscious source of creation. [emphasis mine]
Well I'm glad you finally got around to identifying what all these floating abstractions are supposed to mean.

ineffable
adj.
1. Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable

In other words all that you have been saying identifies nothing because that which cannot be described or expressed in any way whatsoever does not exist, except as a made-up fiction.
Nick_A
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by Nick_A »

RCSaunders
Consciousness only exists as an attribute of living organisms and living organisms are physical entities. There is absolutely no evidence of life, consciousness, or minds independent of the physical organisms they are the life, consciousness, or minds of.
You seem to be confusing consciousness with contents of consciousness. We and all other animals capable of it experience contents of consciousness. It is a conscious ability. But consciousness which enables the experience of contents of consciousness is still a mystery.

Consciousness requires a body but the vibratory quality of consciousness determines the quality of body it is connected to.

1 Corinthians 15
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
The vibrations of the material body match the spiritual quality. Man is unique on earth since it is capable of the evolutionary transition from the natural body into the spiritual body. It is what offers the Christian potential.
This is very strange. I know the source of your beliefs is some sort of the esoteric and occult, which is hardly philosophy (anymore than alchemy or astrology were sciences), but what you describe is oddly similar to the thesis–antithesis–synthesis dialectical method of Fichte, e.g. thesis (affirming), antithesis (denying), synthesis (reconciling). Both versions are nonsense.
You seem to advocate essential dualism or the struggle between the two forces of affirmation and denial on which organic life on earth functions. For many years the Law of the Excluded Middle dominated scientific thought and normal earthly decisions. Dominant secularism became the normal extension of dualism limiting thought to these two elemental forces.

The Law of the Included Middle was always known but remained underground because of secular pressures. Now it seems more scientists are discussing it. My favorite is Dr. Basarab Nicolescu who not only explains it but advocates how it can become a motivating part of society through his organization CIRET. It will be fifty years before the power of secular beliefs will begin to lessen and more and more people begin to open to what is called the “hidden third.” Once it happens it will offer the psychology necessary to survive the dualistic attraction of technology.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c3.php
2. The logic of the included middle

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and the development of quantum physics has led, on the level of theory and scientific experiment, to the upheaval of what were formerly considered to be pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and nonseparability, local causality and global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time, etc.

For example, equations of quantum physics are submitted to a group of symmetries, but their solutions break these symmetries. Similarly, a group of symmetry is supposed to describe the unification of all known physical interactions but the symmetry must be broken in order to describe the difference between strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.
The intellectual scandal provoked by quantum mechanics consists in the fact that the pairs of contradictories that it generates are actually mutually contradictory when they are analyzed through the interpretative filter of classical logic. This logic is founded on three axioms:
1. The axiom of identity : A is A.
2. The axiom of non-contradiction : A is not non-A.
3. The axiom of the excluded middle : There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.
According to the hypothesis of the existence of a single level of Reality, the second and third axioms are obviously equivalent. The dogma of a single level of Reality, arbitrary like all dogma, is so embedded in our consciousness that even professional logicians forget to say that these two axioms are in fact distinct and independent from each other.

If one nevertheless accepts this logic which, after all, has ruled for two millennia and continues to dominate thought today (particularly in the political, social, and economic spheres) one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot affirm the validity of a thing and its opposite at the same time: A and nonA.

Since the definitive formulation of quantum mechanics around 1930 the founders of the new science have been acutely aware of the problem of formulating a new "quantum logic." Subsequent to the work of Birkhoff and van Neumann a veritable flourishing of quantum logics was not long in coming [4]. The aim of these new logics was to resolve the paradoxes which quantum mechanics had created and to attempt, to the extent possible, to arrive at a predictive power stronger than that afforded by classical logic.

Most quantum logics have modified the second axiom of classical logic -- the axiom of non-contradiction -- by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the binary pair (A, non-A). These multivalent logics, whose status with respect to their predictive power remains controversial, have not taken into account one other possibility: the modification of the third axiom -- the axiom of the excluded middle.

History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [5]. Stéphane Lupasco, like Edmund Husserl, belongs to the race of pioneers. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance. Many persons believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction -- whence the rather unfortunate name "logic of contradiction" -- and that it entailed the risk of endless semantic glosses. Still more, the visceral fear of introducing the idea of the included middle , with its magical resonances, only helped to increase the distrust of such a logic.
Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle -- there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A -- is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.

In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic -- A, non-A, and T -- and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example: wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.
It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T', which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can accomplish their reconciliation.

The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time . In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time . On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rathercontradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms.

One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction [6]. The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic: its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.

One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions and passages into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is perhaps the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.

The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases.
You are with the secular majority who deny what is not available to your senses. Others seem to know that reality can only be experienced with the help of noesis or higher mind so remain open to receive rather than basking in emotional denial. I feel fortunate to know of some exceptional minds who stand at the beginning of the bridge between animal and conscious man and point the way..
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteJ wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:39 am If you develop an interest in the topic I'll be happy to chat. Otherwise I'm sure we've both got better things to do.
This sure sounds like an ad-hominem to me.

I have deep interest in the topic. I have so much interest in the topic that I am familiar with numerous metaphysical theories.

Would you say that somebody who has only a single conception/theory off metaphysics is 'Interested in metaphysics'?

I'd say such a person is just dogmatic about metaphysics - precisely because they are unable to consider alternatives.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by RCSaunders »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:29 pm You seem to be confusing consciousness with contents of consciousness.
Consciousness is not some kind of container. Consciousness is a state of direct perception of the physical. What is perceived is not, "in," consciousness, the perception is consciousness.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:29 pm You seem to advocate essential dualism ...
I don't advocate any "...ism," but I do reject any kind of dualism. There is only material existence, which includes all physical entities, which includes all organisms and the non-physical attribute, life, which includes all conscious organisms and the attribute consciousness, which includes all human beings and the attribute of mind. All organisms are physical entities with the additional non-physical, but perfectly natural attributes of life, consciousness, and mind. Life, consciousness, and mind do not exist independently of the organisms they are the life, consciousness, and minds of.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:29 pm 3. The axiom of the excluded middle : There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.
It's not important but technically the law of excluded middle only pertains to propositions, not terms. You have only repeated a mangled version of the law of non-contradiction.

The following is adapted from a piece I wrote years ago:

By truth I mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If scientists, philosophers, and authorities all say the liquid in the bottle is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If all your sentiments, feelings and desires convince you it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, authority or feelings. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, says or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.
Nick_A
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by Nick_A »

RCSaunders
I don't advocate any "...ism," but I do reject any kind of dualism. There is only material existence, which includes all physical entities, which includes all organisms and the non-physical attribute, life, which includes all conscious organisms and the attribute consciousness, which includes all human beings and the attribute of mind. All organisms are physical entities with the additional non-physical, but perfectly natural attributes of life, consciousness, and mind. Life, consciousness, and mind do not exist independently of the organisms they are the life, consciousness, and minds of.
You are referring to science and psychology but why equate it to the study of being?

Are you open to Kant’s distinction between noumenon (thing in itself) and phenomenon or our sense perceptions? Ontology refers to the reality of a thing in itself the reality of which is beyond our senses. You can see a bar of lead and analyse it according to our sense perceptions. This is good science. But what is the thing in itself that we define as lead with our senses? Whatever it is, it is its being and the concern of ontology..
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by RCSaunders »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 pm Are you open to Kant’s distinction between noumenon (thing in itself) and phenomenon or our sense perceptions?
Absolutely not. Kant proposed to correct Hume, a disaster for philosophy, and he only made things worse.
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 pm Ontology refers to the reality of a thing in itself the reality of which is beyond our senses.
You may have your own private definition of ontology, but it is not mine. An entity is whatever its qualities are--that is what a thing in itself is--there is nothing else. There is no material existence, "beyond our senses," and all we can know about what exists is by means of the senses. There is nothing else to know.
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 pm You can see a bar of lead and analyse it according to our sense perceptions. This is good science. But what is the thing in itself that we define as lead with our senses?
A bar of led is exactly what you described, that which we perceive and understand by means of the physical sciences. That is the only, "being," it has.

Seriously, why do you think there is anything else? I am truly interested because it is a common idea and I really do not know why people believe it?
Nick_A
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by Nick_A »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:22 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 pm Are you open to Kant’s distinction between noumenon (thing in itself) and phenomenon or our sense perceptions?
Absolutely not. Kant proposed to correct Hume, a disaster for philosophy, and he only made things worse.
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 pm Ontology refers to the reality of a thing in itself the reality of which is beyond our senses.
You may have your own private definition of ontology, but it is not mine. An entity is whatever its qualities are--that is what a thing in itself is--there is nothing else. There is no material existence, "beyond our senses," and all we can know about what exists is by means of the senses. There is nothing else to know.
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 pm You can see a bar of lead and analyse it according to our sense perceptions. This is good science. But what is the thing in itself that we define as lead with our senses?
A bar of led is exactly what you described, that which we perceive and understand by means of the physical sciences. That is the only, "being," it has.

Seriously, why do you think there is anything else? I am truly interested because it is a common idea and I really do not know why people believe it?
This is hard to explain. You've read in Plato's divided line analogy how the intelligible above the line is distnct from the visible below the line. This it the result of the gradual involution of being or the quality if isness in matter

The Source of existence beyond the limitations of time and space creates reality above the line by means of universal laws and consciousness.

The level of reality called "sun" (son?) creates reality below the line or what we experience as visible. Every phenomenon is comprised of both material reality above the line and below the line and what Plato called the higher and lower parts of the collective human soul. So ontology must refer to not only material reality as we experience at the visible level but reality at the intelligible experiences we can come to experience through intuition.

You can say nonsense; it is all the same materiality. Yet you will be faced with the problem of when a fetus becomes a human being. Is a fetus only piece of meat functioning at the visible level of reality?

A fetus is defined by secularism as n organizatio of materiality. However ontology seeks to learn at what point this matter reflects human being as opposed to a relatonship of elemental forces.. What defines it as human? I will say that a fetus is an atom of humanity. It is the smallest grouping which contains the material and psychical qualities necessary to be human. It is materiality plus. We don't know what they are so just make up all sort of fantastic speculations. We don't know at which point the material ingredients of a fetus becomes an atom of man and what creates it. All your speculations cannot answer what Man is as a thing in itself.

You are concerned with the laws of matter and i am concerned with the laws of being within matter as they relate to objective universal meaning and purpose. You reject it and I call it ontology.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ontology Introduction

Post by RCSaunders »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:26 pm You reject it and I call it ontology.
We're just not going to agree. That's alright with me.
Post Reply