All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by TimeSeeker »

Atla wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:26 pm Of course philosophy is a "stale mate" by definition. Many declare themselves winners based on their own criteria, which others completely reject. How else could it be? There can be NO objective standards. It's just how it is and no one can change it, why do you have such a hard time accepting it?
I don't seek acceptance. I seek understanding. Why would a rational human being CHOOSE to participate in such pointless activity?

At the very least - it is an emotional need that needs to be satisfied. Do YOU find value in it, and if you do - what is it?

I am curious about how humans tick, you see ;)
Atla wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:26 pm I have a perspective that goes several levels beyond yours, you don't have to give me such self-evident examples.
OK.... then I do not understand what your criteria are for "accurate description of reality"? (which is exactly the same problem as choosing philosophical frameworks)

How do you EXPECT such a description to look like/feel like/work like/behave like? If you were to bump into it tomorrow morning - how will you know that it is IT. THE description you've been looking for?

And since I seek understanding and not acceptance or 'being right'. I am willing to listen. So you can explain to me your subjective criteria.
Atla
Posts: 6787
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Atla »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:28 pmI don't seek acceptance. I seek understanding. Why would a rational human being CHOOSE to participate in such pointless activity?

At the very least - it is an emotional need that needs to be satisfied. Do YOU find value in it, and if you do - what is it?

I am curious about how humans tick, you see ;)
Because they want to make sense of the world / human existence? Why is that pointless? I think the part of your brain that assigns meaning/context isn't working properly.
OK.... then I do not understand what your criteria are for "accurate description of reality"? (which is exactly the same problem as choosing philosophical frameworks)

How do you EXPECT such a description to look like/feel like/work like/behave like? If you were to bump into it tomorrow morning - how will you know that it is IT. THE description you've been looking for?

And since I seek understanding and not acceptance or 'being right'. I am willing to listen. So you can explain to me your subjective criteria.
Obviously by "accurate" I don't mean petapeta...petabytes of data. But a simple (as simple as possible), non-magical, non-contradictory description of all there is as far as we can tell. Based on something like Occam's razor, I pretty much reject Western philosophy as a dualistic dead-end.
One doesn't just bump into such a thing, it can take decades / a lifetime to try to develop.
Atla
Posts: 6787
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Atla »

Anyway I won't help you understand humans better. It's time for the fifth attempt to put me on ignore, thx. :)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by TimeSeeker »

Atla wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:40 pm Because they want to make sense of the world / human existence? Why is that pointless? I think the part of your brain that assigns meaning/context isn't working properly.
Given the fact that I believe in objective morality - and therefore objective meaning. I am well on-board with the mission.
It's just that the answers (in so far as me having spoken with a few hundred people) everybody is looking for are answerable through introspection and and guided mentorship.

Reading philosophy gives you other people's answers without you ever having the ability to ask them to clarify their meaning.
And so if people are looking for answers and living philosophers are just here to disagree/argue.... I don't see how that's constructive for either party?
You see - I am all up for creating systems/platforms/communities that work towards a shared goal. e.g people get exactly what they signed up for. Creating value if you will (hence me asking: what is it that you want?)

And the circles of philosophy I've discovered so far don't strike me as a teaching environment... I haven't met a single person who wants to (or knows how to) solve problems e.g ask the right questions to help the other party get to the answers they seek.
Atla wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:40 pm Obviously by "accurate" I don't mean petapeta...petabytes of data. But a simple (as simple as possible), non-magical, non-contradictory description of all there is as far as we can tell. Based on something like Occam's razor, I pretty much reject Western philosophy as a dualistic dead-end.
One doesn't just bump into such a thing, it can take decades / a lifetime to try to develop.
We already have that description? The Universe exists. The end.
Or do you mean not THAT simple?

What questions ought that description answer?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

TimeSeeker wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:58 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:50 pm To define limit as rules still requires the property of definition where one definition is directed to another and effectively exists through the same limits from which it extends, leaving linearism as the foundation of definition and intelligence.
You have fallen for the circularity of Logocentrism again. You can't "define" anything - without first having a language. Try it. Right now.



Logocentrism is circularity as the premise axiom of logocentrism is language as the median of not just definition but extensively to creation as well (through the approximate premise of perception forming reality through qualitative and quantitative language) where language exists as a means of definition and definition exists as a means of language. This circularity is eliminate when identifying a third variable as the synthesis of definition and language. This third variable observes a medial quality that fundamentally connects both language and definition through eachother with this "connection" being the medial variable itself as a limit.

We can observe this in the process of definition in the dictionary where x definition leads to y, y leads back to x while projecting to z. Hence all circular reasoning exists through a linear expansion where the connective properties of alternating duals exist through a form of synthesis that projects to a further definition.

So Language = Definition with "=" observing connective boundary where limit is the foundation of this connection. This "=" as a connective boundary is both a language in itself, as a symbol, while simultaneously existing quite literally as a linear limit.

For example if I observe 5 = x + y

I may observe

5 = 1+4
5 = 2+3

where 5 is connected to a variety of relations through "=" which is a connective linear limit in one respect symbolically (as all equality observes a connection of properties) while simultaneously existing as a separating limit as what is equal exists as separate parts. So what we observe inherently is the connective and seperative capacity of limits.

You cannot have a language without definition proposed by limit. Try it. Right now. All definition is the existence of limits.


The sentences and the corresponding localities which compose it and are composed of it (words, letters, etc.) exist because of their linear direction where the act of definition occurs through the direction of one axiom to another axiom with this direction of axiom to another axiom (Letter to Letter as word. Word to Word as Sentence. Etc.) resulting in further axioms where the axiom is determined because of its directive properties forming it as a limit itself which is the foundation of all axioms: limits.

Language exists through limit with limit itself being language as a complex sets of limits. The directive nature of language is the foundation which forms it as no language exists without direction but direction can exist without language (unless one takes a non-relativistic premise where language and direction exist as one, which is equally viable, but we are talking from a premise of relativity)


A dualism occurs between a logocentristic and a geometric foundation where

1) The logocentric view as the positive premise inevitably is defined by the negative boundary of the geometric foundation (not logocentric).

2) The geometric view as the positive premise inevitably is defined by the negative boundary of the logocentric foundation (not geometric).

3) The positive premised, as the foundation for definition, is dependent upon a starting point of measurement formed by the negative boundary of the antithesis.

4) Either premise as positive or negative leads to an inevitable projection of one towards the other as the negative definition forms the positive definition, hence the relativistic duals are inherently connected as one definition (positive) pushes itself to the negative definition and the negative definition pulls the positive definition to it, both through the linear direction of the statement itself.





Show me a "limit". Take a photo for me. Draw me an picture of a limit. That word "limit". It's not yours ;)
It's connected to a concept.

The limit exists as the directed nature of the sentence which provides the foundation of the sentence...trying reading or writing without direction.



I am merely comparing 'limits' (or as best as I understand your meaning) to what I call 'rules', taxonomies, categories.
And so in that regard those lines/limits of how the very concepts of the world are separated in your head ARE the rules of meaning.
Where "table" ends" and "floor" begins. The imaginary line between the two - limit.

All imaginary lines are simply nonexistent lines which observe a connection. For example I may imagine a unicorn, an animal composed of many qualities, that may not be connected in the empirical world. The line as imaginary, effectively observes it as a connection of parts as "one" hence is absent of any direction and exists as negative dimensional (no direction) considering the parts as connected are directed through themselves as one.

Take a further example: A 1 dimensional point connected to another 1 dimensional point (no zero dimensional). Considering a 1 dimensional point would theoretrical as both self-directed and existing as pure direction, the connection of such points through a line would observe the line as negative dimensional considering the point is pure direction and exists as 1...hence multiplicity is an approximation of unity with this approximation being an inversion of unity into multiplicity synonymous to randomness as absence of unity which is the premise of all structure.



When you create your own language - YOU get to decide what those rules are! You get to create the concept AND the word "tablefloor". And tablefloor is one! No limit - no lines.

Try typing that sentence again without applying a linear direction in doing so....


Lines exist without limit and their continual inversion through the 0 point (which seperates one line into many lines) observes the line existing ad-infinitum through a process of folding resulting in various frequencies, and from frequencies forms, and from form being...Limit as positive exists through no-limit (negative limit as possibility) and in these respects is open to infinite variations of various degrees.

A geometric foundation to being provides a foundation to not just multiple means and qualities of "being" but many dimensions, worlds, species, etc due to its possibilistic nature.



This is why I believe learning to program is indispensible in 2018 if you want to free yourself from Logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism )

Language is only a tool. Don't be its slave - become its master!

Thanks for telling me not to be a slave of language....through language.....


TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by TimeSeeker »

Sure. Whatever you say :)
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:12 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:40 pm Because they want to make sense of the world / human existence? Why is that pointless? I think the part of your brain that assigns meaning/context isn't working properly.
Given the fact that I believe in objective morality - and therefore objective meaning. I am well on-board with the mission.
It's just that the answers (in so far as me having spoken with a few hundred people) everybody is looking for are answerable through introspection and and guided mentorship.

Reading philosophy gives you other people's answers without you ever having the ability to ask them to clarify their meaning.
And so if people are looking for answers and living philosophers are just here to disagree/argue.... I don't see how that's constructive for either party?
You see - I am all up for creating systems/platforms/communities that work towards a shared goal. e.g people get exactly what they signed up for. Creating value if you will (hence me asking: what is it that you want?)

And the circles of philosophy I've discovered so far don't strike me as a teaching environment... I haven't met a single person who wants to (or knows how to) solve problems e.g ask the right questions to help the other party get to the answers they seek.
Atla wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:40 pm Obviously by "accurate" I don't mean petapeta...petabytes of data. But a simple (as simple as possible), non-magical, non-contradictory description of all there is as far as we can tell. Based on something like Occam's razor, I pretty much reject Western philosophy as a dualistic dead-end.
One doesn't just bump into such a thing, it can take decades / a lifetime to try to develop.
We already have that description? The Universe exists. The end.
Or do you mean not THAT simple?

What questions ought that description answer?
The question of universal problems in philosophy finding a common solution is premised in observing an inherent unity through a common premise with this premise being the foundation of a further philosophy while observed both objectively and intuitively through prior philosophical movements.

The question of truth, under this unity, is less one of applying a perceived division which inherently leads to a branching of schools and the perspectives which extend from them, but rather observing a strict foundation of principles that extend not just from this unity but is the precedent for it.

This new philosophical school must not just give answers to questions about abstraction, physicality, quantity, quality, morality, ethics, religion, science, etc. but must be able to maintain them in its own rational framework while being open to extension without any fear of contradiction...and with a perceivable fear of contradiction the rationalization of contradiction as being an inherent element contained and imprisoned through the system itself.

From a unified philosophical school must come not just answers, but proceeding questions inherent within the structure which are necessary for it to maintain a progressive growth. In these respects Western Linear Relativistic and Eastern Circulatory Holism must effectively be synthesized not just for the sake of knowledge but due to the practical and abstract complication of the information age where both idea and fact is available at the push of a button.

In the age of information, opinion is the roaring ocean of chaos from which a new philosophy will be birthed.

The question of common axioms in philosophy exists through the current understanding of philosophy as an understanding of order through balance as a form of definition in itself. All definition is conducive to form and function and acts as the foundation of the boundaries of knowledge itself. Under these terms, in the pursuit of a unified philosophical system the human condition must resort to primitive axioms, the fundamentally act as prime conditions of the human experience, in order not just to understand our current state of being, but also its origins and future considering philosophy itself is conducive the entropic nature of time made evident in the multitude of philosophical and religious traditions made manifest through out the course of time and exponentiating in the 21st century.

Upon any deep research into the origin of philosophy, western thought inevitably leads to Thales and Pythagoras, whose methodology and research stems from religious traditions all over the world (embodied in the the initiation of their corresponding mysteries schools, which applies more to Pythagoras than Thales) must summating in a triad of Egyptian/Babylonian, Hebraic, and Hindu thought. The eastern schools of the Chinese, while relegated to Confucious and a variety of other teachers, may be possibility observe (emphasis on possibily) as extensions of the Egyptian tradition where research implies Chinese culture stemming from the Egyptians.

Egyptian/Babylonian Culture (and its thetical or antithetical dual of the Hebraic Tradition, depending on the origin point of measurement one wants to take) claims extension from an Atlantis type culture with Hindu culture mirroring this civilizational concept under the name Attasthali or Attatthali.

Now of course this will have to be further researched, quoted and verified through empirical evidence but it gives a vague picture of origin and the question of not just philosophy but the nature of the civilizations stemming from this origin philosophy...or rather philosophy of "origin".

But the question and answer of "origin" gives a common bond to not just all philosophy but religious tradition as well, with this "origin" being not just the foundation of the axiom but the prime axiom in itself considering all axioms are the origin of perspective as both a subjective and objective means of understanding the truth. Reverting back to ancient tradition, observed in certain religions and reflected in Pythagorean thought, "origin" acts as a seed of definition which gives structure to the nature of reality with the prime origin of being effectively the point.

The sole universal axiom of the human condition is the point, for how simple it may appear, with the axiom acting as a point in itself in the respect it not just extends to further points (in the form of linear reasoning) but inevitably circles back to itself (in the form of circular reasoning) leaving a trifold structure of axiomatic truths embodied thought the simple triadic limits of the point, line and circle that give form to reality and to us, while simultaneously observing the measuring capacity of the human condition stemming through this triad alone.

This common set of axioms reveals the axiom as a definitive means in itself where the point as origin fundamentally acts as a means of inversion where a unified axiom inverts itself to multiple axioms of both a linear and circular directive nature which gives rise to the nature of all being stemming from the nature of limit itself...with the axiomatic nature of these limits existing as connected in each other through the vary same point, linear and circular nature.

In these respects a common premise, however obvious it may be, for the future of philosophy is a quantification and qualification of reality as both 1 and Unity through "the All" where existence is accepted for what it is under the boundaries it manifests under considering the diversity of thought and religion still points to certain common underlying qualities of the point line and circle which exist dually as quantities.

Under an premise of "The All" as Constant we can observe the dualistic truth of Relativism as being an approximation of it through change and multiplicity of appearance while this dualism effectively exists as synthesis itself where the point, line and circle exist as neutral properties that simultaneous join/separate reality relative to the point of observation while existing for what they are: Limits as axioms with the axiom as the Limit.

In these respects we observe man as a both measurer and means as a reflection or image of "The All", hence divinity, and the moral questions of human dignity and value come into a clearer perspective as man can be observed as having an inherent element of Divinity with our condition through this extension of "The All" and divinity.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:58 pm Sure. Whatever you say :)
Thanks for defining that through the directive capacity of language...I was hoping for more of an argument.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by TimeSeeker »

I have no idea what you are saying.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:05 pm I have no idea what you are saying.
And what specifically is that?

This statement is a linear statement and exists if and only if it read from left to right (or right to left if you are gifted).

The act of reasoning, as showing the connective and separate nature of definitions, can be observed in the dictionary as a simple examples of:

1) Definition A leads to Definition B.

2) B leads back to A.

3) While A and B alternate between eachother, they do so through a linear means where one is directed linearly towards the other.

4) This alternation exists as circularity through a linear means of direction with the directive quality of one definition to another giving it the proceeding definition which in turn gives structure to both definitions.

5) Alternation is circularity through a linear direction where the continual repetition of a definition A or B effectively observes it circulariting through itself, and in doing so resulting in further definitions. This alternation between A and B effectively observes a further linear projection to Definition C and the process continues.

6) In these respects, all definitions as parts which exist through a directional nature (as all definition exists according to how it is directed) exist through alternation.

7) All alternation is circularity through the form of the line.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by TimeSeeker »

Why not just draw this? It seems your mind is very geometric - language is holding you back.

Try another medium.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: All Circular Reasoning is Linear

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:59 am Why not just draw this? It seems your mind is very geometric - language is holding you back.

Try another medium.
That is the very problem considering that a premise of "limit", where all phenomena including language exists through its directive properties, observes all phenomena as medial points of this limit itself. So while one may observe the relation of various phenomena through the application of geometric diagrams, the problem still occurs in the respect that the nature of language exists through these various directive limits in itself as a complex relation of these limits resulting in the form and function of language as a limit in itself.

The inherent aspect of linear and circular reasoning with the axiom acting as a relativistic point of awareness through which all axioms effectively exist as connected as one axiom in itself and as infinite points of inversion (considering all axioms are inversive) leads to nature of language whose form and function is premised in the very same geometric limits it describes. This leads to an inherent reflective quality where limit exists through language and language exists through limit with the limit itself being conducive to the word through this reflective circularity of common bonds which in itself is its own limit.

The question of finding the appropriate medium, from a perspective of everything existing as a medial center point in itself as an extension of the center point of the all, is strictly one of relation in these respects where the medium acts as an appropriate connector to the specific perspective and its inherently subjective and objective origins.
Post Reply