Self-awareness

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by commonsense » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:15 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:33 am

Commonsense

Hmm... I disagree strongly with the way you're using the word philosophy, it is not something to "know" or be "understood", rather it's a collection of opinions and truths about a great variety of topics which amounts to something like "a way of thinking about x".
Judaka

Mea culpa. I did not intend to imply that philosophy is something to be known or understood in the way that you may have interpreted my words.

My phrasing was a shorthand of sorts and, thereby, incomplete. I could have written that to understand philosophy is to understand that it's a collection of opinions and truths about a great variety of topics which amounts to something like "a way of thinking about x".

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:33 am
You can offer a definition for philosophy and we can talk about it
Philosophy is a search for the truth of things, guided by an interest in critical thinking.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:33 am
This forum has plenty of such people but I won't name names, it's either obvious to you or it isn't.
Touche

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am

Age

I've probably provided more than 5 examples so far, if they are not what you expected then you have the opportunity to provide a context and we can talk about it but I'm unsure what's wrong with my examples thus far.

I've seen your main argument being made about various things like intelligence, character and now self-awareness I guess. Where your argument amounts to "truly self-aware people are kind, understanding and humble" and there's no explanation for why that is the case, you merely assert it. It's just idealism on your part.

You don't agree with my contempt and my displeasure towards philosophers who lack self-awareness, fair enough, I can appreciate the argument of "be the change you want to see in the world" and certainly I'm not limited to contempt, I can appreciate a need for understanding and sharing ideas and information to the benefit of everyone. There's a time and place for everything though, my thread is not a "how to be more self-aware" thread.

I'm also not weaponising the concept of self-awareness to control or belittle anyone in particular, I am merely stating the truth as I see it. That it is to the detriment of others is not a reason to not speak the truth as I see it, there's no positive outcome from this thread besides improving my or others' ability and desire to argue it or possibly someone realising they're guilty of what I'm describing and trying to exhibit more effort towards the goal of self-awareness. I could understand your point of view if I was going around the forum telling people "your opinion is dumb because self-awareness" but I'm not.

It's actually you who is weaponising your views on how "the self-aware person should be" and telling me I lack self-awareness and I'm a hypocrite because I fail to follow your vision for what the self-aware person should be like. The irony that despite this, you're telling me I'm being biased and narrow-minded, is absolutely not lost on me.

Nick_A

You always have such great and relevant quotes at your disposal, I'm impressed by that. Your post here once again, re-asserts compellingly the message this thread was trying to convey. I believe the journey you describe here is necessary for all who wish to create useful philosophy, as you say. One thing I have also realised is to understand why it is I might be trying to express an idea or have a conversation about philosophy. That we express ideas for the wrong reasons is just another part of being human but ideas which are being expressed or created for the wrong reasons will not be useful to anyone, especially yourself.

Commonsense

It seems at this point we have a usable definition of philosophy, so to refer to the general point I was trying to make in light of this definition(s), I am saying that philosophy is indeed the search for truth, guided by critical thinking and it's also a collection of opinions and truths. However, this is not an inherently good or useful thing, in fact, it has the potential to do great harm to people. A focus on opinions and truths which dismay, deceive, mislead, hurt and hinder people.

Merely having self-awareness doesn't completely protect you from that, however, it's a necessary start. To realise that you have the potential to be unreasonable, illogical, unfair, envious, irritable and to hold yourself accountable for what you do wrong in a constructive way. Realising that these are things which affect not just you but everyone. I'll spare you some impassioned argument on the subject but Nick_A has probably already said it better than I could anyway.

Without self-awareness, philosophy becomes corrupted, without self-awareness, your interpretations and understanding can't be trusted. Age is somewhat correct in believing that I'm saying that identifying people who lack self-awareness and thinking they have little value to offer to your life is smart. Nick_A is correct in what he's saying about a path or journey that people can take, I'm trying to spread awareness of that too. I think either way it's a worthwhile thing to be aware of.

Age
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:54 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
Age

I've probably provided more than 5 examples so far, if they are not what you expected then you have the opportunity to provide a context and we can talk about it but I'm unsure what's wrong with my examples thus far.
What is wrong with those examples is that none of them are in relation to what you were talking about and from which I asked if you would provide some examples of what you were talking about.
You wrote:
Much of the questions asked in philosophy are answered by realising that people are products of nature/nurture and this affects everyone including you. Sadly, I think most people on philosophy forums are some of the least self-aware people you'll ever meet and they've turned to philosophy to answer questions which seem advanced, unanswered and too complicated for the average individual uninterested in philosophy. Truthfully, they come up with absurd answers to questions that would've easily been answered by having some self-awareness.


I replied:
Will you provide any examples of these questions that seem advanced, unanswered and too complicated for the average individual uninterested in philosophy?

If so, then will you also provide what would have been the easily arrived at answers to those questions, by those who have some self-awareness?


See there is no real use in me providing a 'context' because it is from 'your context', from which you wrote from, that I was asking for examples of.

I am just looking for some examples of those questions, and then examples of the answers that come easily to those having some self-awareness.

Just so I get a much better a clearer picture of what you are actually talking about here.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
I've seen your main argument being made about various things like intelligence, character and now self-awareness I guess. Where your argument amounts to "truly self-aware people are kind, understanding and humble" and there's no explanation for why that is the case, you merely assert it.
Yes I did NOT provide one shred of explanation for why that is the case, purposely, for specific reasons. One reason at least was to highlight and SHOW that you this is EXACTLY what you are doing also, and that is; Also NOT providing any explanation for WHY you say that so called ones having self-awareness do what you say they do. You just state/assert that these people do these things, and, that other people do other things, without ANY actual evidence for this.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
It's just idealism on your part.
Showing how you are defining the word 'idealism' here, will then reflect more of what you are actually saying and meaning here.

Until then it is just interpretation and perception on your part.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
You don't agree with my contempt and my displeasure towards philosophers who lack self-awareness, fair enough,
Another WRONG assumption, on your part.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
I can appreciate the argument of "be the change you want to see in the world" and certainly I'm not limited to contempt, I can appreciate a need for understanding and sharing ideas and information to the benefit of everyone.
I can SEE that also, and I look forward to truly sharing ideas and information TO and FOR the benefit of EVERY one.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
There's a time and place for everything though, my thread is not a "how to be more self-aware" thread.
Well that is NOT what your thread is, so, what is your thread then?

Your thread comes across as; 'I am more self-aware than others are', and a 'People having self-awareness, like me, are better than people who lack self-awareness', thread.

Now is the time to clarify what is the actual purpose for your thread here?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
I'm also not weaponising the concept of self-awareness to control or belittle anyone in particular, I am merely stating the truth as I see it.
And, what is the truth, as you see it, EXACTLY?

That you are MORE self-aware than others are? That is an obvious fact, which does NOT need to be stated, from my perspective.

If that is merely the truth that what you wanted to state, then just state it, instead of going on in this round about way. Just stating an honest truth, simply, comes across far better, than does writing lots of words and making out that you are better than others are because you have more self-awareness than they do.

Also, are you going to be completely truthful and state how you are NOT truly NOR fully self-aware yet. Or, do you want to leave that part out altogether?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
That it is to the detriment of others is not a reason to not speak the truth as I see it,
I do NOT see you TRYING to belittle others as being detrimental to them at all, but being detrimental to you, is another matter.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
there's no positive outcome from this thread besides improving my or others' ability and desire to argue it
Here you use the words, "There is no positive outcome from this thread besides improving my or other's ability and desire to argue it .."

What is the "it" that you are referring to here that you want to improve arguing for AND desire to argue for?

In other words; WHAT EXACTLY do you desire to argue for and improve your ability to argue for?
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
or possibly someone realising they're guilty of what I'm describing and trying to exhibit more effort towards the goal of self-awareness.
How is this for a suggestion. How about I start describing and showing just how much you are actually lacking in self-awareness, and I do this on the pretense that just maybe you will realize that you are totally guilty of what I describe, and then you will start TRYING to exhibit more effort towards the goal of self-awareness. I will do this as though it is up to ME, who is the ONE that decides who should or should NOT be exhibiting MORE EFFORT to do some thing that I THINK/BELIEVE is the BEST for others. This is laughable beyond the absurdity.

Either you have a course or program on how to become better or more self-aware that you could share with us here, and just leave it up to us with how much we choose to follow of it or even if not at all.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
I could understand your point of view if I was going around the forum telling people "your opinion is dumb because self-awareness" but I'm not.
Obviously you are NOT doing that. You are to smart for that.

You are obviously, well to me anyway, doing it in a much more subtle way.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
It's actually you who is weaponising your views on how "the self-aware person should be" and telling me I lack self-awareness and I'm a hypocrite because I fail to follow your vision for what the self-aware person should be like.
Yes you are very close to being right here, but I would NOT use the word 'weaponising' my views, only because I have not seen this word used in this context before. But that is just about exactly what I am doing here, except I would also not use the word 'should'. That is; I am expressing how 'the truly Self-aware IS' and I am also telling you that you lack self-awareness but I am NOT saying that you are a hypocrite because you fail to follow my vision for what the self-aware person "should" be like. I am saying that you are NOT doing what the Truly Self-aware does. I, also, am NOT saying that because you are NOT truly Self-aware yet, that that means that you are somehow less or inferior than others are.

Again, it could be said that I am just speaking the truth, as I see it, which I could be completely wrong or partly wrong.
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:20 am
The irony that despite this, you're telling me I'm being biased and narrow-minded, is absolutely not lost on me.
I said; 'You have a very biased and closed in, narrow view of things', which could be said that 'I am just speaking the truth, as I see it'. But also just as truthfully I could be partly or completely wrong. We will just have to wait and see. I based that view on a couple of things that you wrote, which I would have been better of acknowledging the first time.

By the way I would NOT use the term "narrow-minded" as it is complete contradiction in terms and it truly makes no sense, to me. Although I know what people are trying to mean when they use that term.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:09 pm

Age

Well, this is another thing in discussions, isn't it? Where you say "it comes across as though you're saying" and proceed to say something which I've never actually said or (to my mind) insinuated whatsoever. I've actually made an argument in my OP, I've said what I had to say.

Now with regards to whether I am self-aware or not, It should, of course, be assumed that I believe I am self-aware, though it's not really essential to my argument. I believe self-awareness is essential to philosophy like legs are for running. I can appreciate how in a philosophy forum, that would mean if one is being condemned as lacking in self-awareness, it's a death sentence to their credibility. I can appreciate how that aspect might cause someone discomfort if indeed that's your problem here. When I talk about my ideas being to "the detriment of others", I'm referring to this aspect and not my "belittling" of them.

Perhaps you just have a healthy level of cynicism about such an idea, assume the worst of me, I'm expressing an idea which I believe to be true without concern for who it may hurt (not that I assumed it would hurt anyone, quite the opposite really, I assumed my post would have 0 impact on anyone).

Alternatively, you've decided the only reason I've made this thread at all, is to brag to everyone about how self-aware I think I am. I haven't even talked about myself once in this thread, or how self-aware I think I am. I can't prove that this wasn't my goal and if you decide to believe it's all for my ego, I can only refer to my lack of intent throughout this thread, to make it about me or about anybody in particular. Even as you insult me, I haven't reacted, my ego and what I think about the ego could be another thread but I don't believe you have sufficient grounds to accuse me of doing this for my ego at this time.

I've made an argument in this thread, which is that self-awareness is necessary for philosophy and that philosophy without self-awareness is misguided and low-quality. Nick_A has probably argued my case better than I did and you can read his posts for further clarification.

I don't know what to say about the examples, it seems I believe I've provided them and you don't. I will retract what I said about self-awareness providing easy answers for philosophical questions, I believe I did oversimplify the issue and clearly I'm unable to come up with examples you'll accept so I'll just acquiesce this point for the sake of progress. Once again, Nick_A made some good and concise posts about what I am talking about, you can read them if you're interested, I don't see any point in me explaining when he already did a great job.

I think anyone can be self-aware if they make a prolonged effort and I also think that people have temperaments, psychological dispositions and generally nature/nurture reasons for being the kind of person they are. Becoming self-aware, just as with being intelligent, doesn't necessarily mean much except that you are going to be aware of your proclivities, tendencies, potential and so on, as you are others (to various extents).

It seems like you're telling me that my personality, philosophies, experiences, opinions and my overall nature counts for nothing? Provided I'm truly self-aware then we'll have exactly the same views about self-awareness? Do you really understand how different you and I are? It's not a bridge that can be gapped by self-awareness and that should be obvious.

Self-awareness is also about realising that the ways in which you are different from others and when you try to use yourself as an example of what something should look like, you see that thing in a light which is not helpful for you, or me, or anyone else. If I believe I am what a good person looks like and you're different from me... you can see the problem.

About "Idealism":

I can say several things about your claim about what "truly self-aware people" are really like. What stands out most of all though, is that you're trying to universalise a pretty idea, in my mind, that's sufficient to call it idealism. Idealism as an idea is pertinent to the thread because it's a bad premise that should be dispelled by awareness of you, others and I suppose humans in general. Self-awareness is essentially just awareness about nature/nurture impacts on people... what you choose to do with that understanding and how you interpret, there lies an ocean of possibilities.

Somewhere in the horribly messy, complicated world, there's something like a truth about how it's likely to impact people. It's beyond you and it's beyond me. Accepting truths that don't align with our preferences and ideals is necessary. Even if I'm not self-aware, others who are will not conform to your ideas, nastiness and pettiness isn't only present in the unenlightened, give a man intelligence, leadership, sense of duty and community, self-awareness and you may have an exceptionally great man, or a monster, who knows?

You don't get to choose in hindsight of knowing whether he's a great man or a monster, whether or not he had these things to begin with,

Nick_A
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:36 pm

Judaka
Nick_A

You always have such great and relevant quotes at your disposal, I'm impressed by that. Your post here once again, re-asserts compellingly the message this thread was trying to convey. I believe the journey you describe here is necessary for all who wish to create useful philosophy, as you say. One thing I have also realised is to understand why it is I might be trying to express an idea or have a conversation about philosophy. That we express ideas for the wrong reasons is just another part of being human but ideas which are being expressed or created for the wrong reasons will not be useful to anyone, especially yourself.
Have you noticed how many posts begin with asserting "what humans do?" Somehow the poster is not considered human. Of course a self aware person will write what they do as a part of the human condition. This is what self awareness is; it is the conscious experience, awareness, of our mechanics. Philosophy amongst those considering themselves above the human condition is purely an expression of opinions. Verification of what we are is only possible during moments of self awareness. Otherwise philosophy is purely the expression of opinions and IMO you are wise to question its value and relation to philosophy as the love of wisdom which by definition must be experienced at the depths of human being to be real.

I think that when we question as an expression of the love of wisdom, our sincerity has merit. When we question and argue for the sake of trying to appear intelligent as an expression of self pride, we only deny ourselves the good of philosophy.
“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
There is nothing wrong with such passionate interest. The problem begins with superficial conclusions.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:59 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:36 pm
Have you noticed how many posts begin with asserting "what humans do?" Somehow the poster is not considered human. Of course a self aware person will write what they do as a part of the human condition. This is what self awareness is; it is the conscious experience, awareness, of our mechanics. Philosophy amongst those considering themselves above the human condition is purely an expression of opinions. Verification of what we are is only possible during moments of self awareness. Otherwise philosophy is purely the expression of opinions and IMO you are wise to question its value and relation to philosophy as the love of wisdom which by definition must be experienced at the depths of human being to be real.
If there was one vital function philosophy ought to perform it so indoctrinate (yes, that's the word I am choosing) people into recognising the human condition much earlier on in life. And perhaps, that is exactly the wisdom in the never-ending truth-seeking game.

Truth is the banner of humanity. The purpose of pursuing truth is to humble oneself.

We, humans, truly know so little as to comfortably call it nothing.

Nick_A
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:10 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:59 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:36 pm
Have you noticed how many posts begin with asserting "what humans do?" Somehow the poster is not considered human. Of course a self aware person will write what they do as a part of the human condition. This is what self awareness is; it is the conscious experience, awareness, of our mechanics. Philosophy amongst those considering themselves above the human condition is purely an expression of opinions. Verification of what we are is only possible during moments of self awareness. Otherwise philosophy is purely the expression of opinions and IMO you are wise to question its value and relation to philosophy as the love of wisdom which by definition must be experienced at the depths of human being to be real.
If there was one vital function philosophy ought to perform it so indoctrinate (yes, that's the word I am choosing) people into recognising the human condition much earlier on in life. And perhaps, that is exactly the wisdom in the never-ending truth-seeking game.

Truth is the banner of humanity. The purpose of pursuing truth is to humble oneself.

We, humans, truly know so little as to comfortably call it nothing.
Indoctrination is a method useful for politics and secular education but a detriment for philosophy as the love of wisdom. This quality of love cannot be indoctrinated.
Simone Weil — 'When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.'
The dialectic for Socrates was the means for reaching basic human contradictions. Experiencing and admitting them rather than denying them invites conscious contemplation and the possibility of a noetic experience leading to the higher perspective in which higher knowledge reconciles them and they are experienced as one.

Indoctrination produces trained seals. Socrates' method invites the experience of soul knowledge of higher values. The idea is to awaken human beings rather than producing trained seals.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:15 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:10 pm
Indoctrination is a method useful for politics and secular education but a detriment for philosophy as the love of wisdom. This quality of love cannot be indoctrinated.
I think through the social pressure and norms incentivising the pursuit of "truth" the indoctrination is working jus fine.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:10 pm
The dialectic for Socrates was the means for reaching basic human contradictions. Experiencing and admitting them rather than denying them invites conscious contemplation and the possibility of a noetic experience leading to the higher perspective in which higher knowledge reconciles them and they are experienced as one.
And yet Aristotle's law of non-contradiction has been escalated to a religious status. To the point where the contradiction (humanity) is denied in pursuit of non-contradiction.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:10 pm
Indoctrination produces trained seals.
Socrates' method invites the experience of soul knowledge of higher values. The idea is to awaken human beings rather than producing trained seals.
On-par then. The law of unintended consequences rears its head. There are very few free thinkers even within the realms of philosophy. Most just mimic what they think free thought looks like.

Nick_A
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:17 am

Logik
And yet Aristotle's law of non-contradiction has been escalated to a religious status. To the point where the contradiction (humanity) is denied in pursuit of non-contradiction.
I agree that in public Aristotle’s Law of non-contradiction rules the day. However I believe that we are entering extraordinary times in which science will come to appreciate the Law of the Included middle and not restrict itself to the Law of the Excluded Middle. It is through the Law of the Included Middle that the contradiction can be reconciled as an aspect of the included middle. I know it appears absurd yet when we read how Dr. Nicolescu describes it, it does open doors.

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 non-A.

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.
Who knows. Perhaps in the future when the duality of science begins to open to the triune perspective known by the essence of religion, science and the essence of religion will be understood as complimentary in Man’s search for meaning.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:30 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:17 am
Who knows. Perhaps in the future when the duality of science begins to open to the triune perspective known by the essence of religion, science and the essence of religion will be understood as complimentary in Man’s search for meaning.
Pretty much. Religion provides meaning and purpose. Science provides the means to those ends.

Constructive mathematics has been on that path for over 50 years now in the footsteps of L. E.Brouwer

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/constructive+mathematics
Broadly speaking, constructive mathematics is mathematics done without the principle of excluded middle, or other principles, such as the full axiom of choice, that imply it, hence without “non-constructive” methods of formal proof, such as proof by contradiction. This is in contrast to classical mathematics, where such principles are taken to hold.
Giving up the law of excluded middle has produced the greatest advancement in logic in 2000 years. The Curry-Howard isomorphism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence ) which basically states that Mathematical proofs and computer programs are one and the same thing. Models.

The social constructionist view is becoming more and more evident.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:38 am

Nick_A

You're probably the only poster so far to appreciate the intent of this thread and the problem of lacking self-awareness in philosophy. You are once again, saying very sensible things in my estimation.

I wish to be able to compellingly and concisely assert the importance of self-awareness in philosophy and in other areas in the future. Just a small introduction to the idea can be so powerful. I believe also it is necessary to as you've posted in your bible quote, view the undesirable aspects of your nature externally, deal with it as though it's a problem of being a human and identify with it as external from "your true self". This is necessary as to process problems as problems without any impact on the ego; identity and self-respect.

Logik

People who have been indoctrinated to seek the truth are distinguishable from those who genuinely recognise the value of the truth almost instantly, it's a concept worthy of its own thread really. The truth is often elevated to a religious status and you can see that constantly in philosophy forums. It is a very interesting topic albeit not one I'd discuss with you.

Nick_A
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:53 am

Judaka
Nick_A

You're probably the only poster so far to appreciate the intent of this thread and the problem of lacking self-awareness in philosophy. You are once again, saying very sensible things in my estimation.

I wish to be able to compellingly and concisely assert the importance of self-awareness in philosophy and in other areas in the future. Just a small introduction to the idea can be so powerful. I believe also it is necessary to as you've posted in your bible quote, view the undesirable aspects of your nature externally, deal with it as though it's a problem of being a human and identify with it as external from "your true self". This is necessary as to process problems as problems without any impact on the ego; identity and self-respect.
You will probably appreciate this excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s excellent book “Lost Christianity.” It has helped me to understand how Christianity has been perverted over time. He provides this account of what self awareness can reveal. We are like an acorn

Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.
Modern secular Man doesn’t distinguish between the inner Man (kernel of life within the acorn and the outer man (the shell) It is only through experiences of self awareness that we experience that we are both a living being and a personality which lives our life for us.

As you’ve suggested it is only through self awareness that philosophy can bypass the personality and touch the infantile inner man enabling it to develop. Real philosophy and the essence of religion express ideas of a quality that inspires real contemplation which is an aspect of self awareness

I’ve seen the intent of modern society is to create indoctrinated personalities while killing the essence of human life or the seed of the soul.

People who have experienced self awareness know that they are both the inner man and the outer man Socrates referred to with the hope that they can live as one. The personality then becomes the tool of the inner man when it matures instead of the inner man being starved by the personality.

Age
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:38 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:53 am

People who have experienced self awareness know that they are both the inner man and the outer man Socrates referred to with the hope that they can live as one. The personality then becomes the tool of the inner man when it matures instead of the inner man being starved by the personality.
Why not just be rid of the 'personality outer self' and just let the 'inner Self' flourish?

To be truly Self-aware is to be able to distinguish between the self (the human being) and thee Self (Being).

The human being is only a person (or the personality) within a human body. What a person is made up of is thoughts and emotions. Both of which are invisible, just like a soul is. An individual person exists/dwells/lives within an individual human body. An individual person(ality) is created from what the human body experiences. Through the five senses of that human body the personality is formed. From the conception of the human body to the last breath of that body, while that human body is producing thoughts and emotions the human being is always being created/formed. ALL people are the exact same this way. but obviously because ALL human bodies experience different things there will ALWAYS be different thoughts being formed or occurring. Every uniquely different and individual thus special human body holds within it an also equally uniquely different and individual special human being also. No human being self is more or less than another is. They are ALL just uniquely different.

The (inner) Being is the Highest and is within EVERY thing. What this Being is made of is thee Mind, which is also invisible, this time just like a Spirit is. This Being exists/dwells/lives within absolutely EVERY thing. It is the One thing within EVERY thing. The Mind is only One that IS, always and in all ways, OPEN. The Mind was NEVER created nor formed. It is eternal. The (open) Mind is what allows human beings to be able to imagine absolutely EVERY thing. This ability allows human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing. This ability combined with the human brain being able to gather and store information that it obtains means that human beings have had the ability to imagine, invent, design, and create ALL that they have. The (open) Mind is thee Creator, some refer to.

Now, because this Creator, (that is thee Mind), from ALL accounts is completely invisible and able to transcend absolutely EVERY thing, It literally has NO ability to create other to ALLOW ALL physical things to FREELY move around in whatever way they so choose to. It is after all the invisible substance of space/no thing in between and around ALL physical things that allows them to FREELY move, which has CREATED the Universe, the way that It is NOW.

Remove the human being self and STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things from that perspective ALLOWS the real and true Self to Create that what It is intending to and WILL Create. Because this Self IS thee Universe, Itself, then EVERY thing It does is for the good and best of and for Its Self/EVERYTHING, as One.

The answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?' is In the physical form I exist and can be SEEN in the shape of and by ALL physical things. 'I' am thee whole Universe, Itself, sometimes also referred to as Existence/ALL-THERE-IS/Life et cetera. In the Spiritual sense I exist and can be SEEN/UNDERSTOOD as the Truly always OPEN Mind, Itself, sometimes also referred to as Allah/God/Spiritual Enlightenment/et cetera.

Just like 'i' the human being is made up of two things, they being; A physical human body and the invisible personal thoughts and emotions being within. So to am 'I' the (inner) Being is made up of two things, they being; A physical Universal body (which is made up of ALL physical things) and the invisible One Mind KNOWING Being within ALL physical things.

Now, of course most of you, human beings, here will NOT get this nor UNDERSTAND this yet, when this is written. But this WILL BE-come common knowledge soon enough, which will also lead to the CREATION of the PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS "world" that ALL human beings WANT to live in and share with one another together.

You just have to understand that if the concepts/ideas/values/assumptions/beliefs/views/et cetera (which are ALL just thoughts/thinking) within that individual human body come from ONLY that bodies past experiences and are NOT a shared common KNOWLEDGE/KNOWING among ALL, then that is just a subjective thought of actually no real importance at all anyway. That thought is just the individual little 'you', the 'person' and little self within a human body.

What IS, however, commonly KNOWN by ALL is what IS really important, and a guide that you will WANT to follow anyway.

Examples are; MOST adult human beings individually THINK that it is all right to drive around in motor vehicles, which pollute the actual air human beings NEED for their continued survival. These individual little selves TRY TO justify that this behavior as all right. If they could not so call "justify" this behavior they could not continue to do it. But what ALL KNOW and can agree on IS that it is WRONG to drive vehicles, which pollute the actual air human beings NEED for their continued survival. If some can NOT agree, then ask them if they would like to be put into a closed area, with the exhaust from a motor vehicle piped into that room? The earth's atmosphere could be classed as a closed area as obviously to much pollution can NOT escape quick enough.

Now MOST adult human beings will TRY TO justify that they NEED motor vehicles to go to work. Yet they are so blinded by this BELIEF that they NEED to work for money that they have lost ALL sight of what IS actually True and Real. That is; Human beings do NOT need money for their continued survival. This KNOWLEDGE is a KNOWING that ALL can agree on and accept.

These examples are WHAT thee Truth IS, and, from WHERE the Truth IS found is in agreement. From within EVERY one, passed the individual thinking one self and from the collective KNOWING One Self is WHERE the actual and real Truth lays and will be revealed from.

To KNOW thy Self, is to first KNOW who the human self IS and what it is made up of, and then to uncover Who and What the actual Real and True Self IS. The answer to the question Who am 'I'? has nothing to do with the just evolving human coming into being, passing through, and exiting Life self, but to do with thee One that IS Who 'I' really am. I may have needed an intelligent species like the human being and the amazing brain within that species to fully SEE and UNDERSTAND Who I really am, but I am certainly NOT a human being. i, however, am.

This seemingly contradiction in nature partly SHOWS exactly how the Mind and the brain work.

The Mind KNOWS, whereas, the brain THINKS it KNOWS. The amazing ability of the brain to gather and store absolutely any knowledge, including any knowledge that is totally false, wrong, and incorrect, and then "reason" and "justify" that "knowledge" as being correct to support what it already BELIEVES is true, from previous past experiences, is exactly how the brain is so deceptively smart. ALL the stories of good and evil/God and devil ALL happens this way, within human body. The thoughts, from the brain, are devilishly clever and unknowing deceive its own self, to the point that one is completely BLINDED and STOPPED from SEEING the actual and real Truth of things.

The Mind, however, completely and instantly SEES passed ALL of this. But because absolutely human beings do is a result of learning, if a human being has NOT learned/been taught how to LOOK AT and SEE things correctly, for what they ARE, then obviously no person would just KNOW how to do it. ALL things are either learned or discovered. It is ONLY because of past experiences human beings have learned how to do and achieve the things that they have. Any thing newly discovered is NOT because an individual human being who discovered it is more intelligent than another. It is ONLY because of what they human body has previously experienced, which formed the thoughts within it, which when added with other previously formed thoughts, new things are SEEN. Thus the reason WHY human beings keep progressing in a exponential rate of creating new things. From new discoveries come new ideas, and from that new creations.

Discovering and learning just HOW actual quick, simple, and easy it is to CREATE a Truly new peaceful and pollution-free world just NEEDS an OPEN Mind, obviously.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 am

Age

You have provided an archetypal example of what philosophy looks like without self-awareness or awareness of others, You make Logik look sensible. I'm not actually here to boost my ego and try to convince people they're wrong and so when you show you've nothing to offer me, I'm out and I believe all that has to be said about the topic of my OP has already been said. Won't be posting in this thread again, thx everyone for your contributions.

Age
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:52 am

Judaka wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 am
Age

You have provided an archetypal example of what philosophy looks like without self-awareness or awareness of others.
All I did was add on to what one said in reference to "inner man" and "outer man". So, why do you NOT pick apart my descriptions of self and Self, and SHOW why I supposedly have NO self-awareness?

You want to come across as the one having self-awareness, yet you have NOT been able to show this at all.


By the way there is NO one example of what 'philosophy' looks like, as there are many different definitions of 'philosophy', with many different meanings. Some would even say how you say what philosophy "looks like" is NOT what philosophy IS.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 am
You make Logik look sensible.
Once again, lowering your self to the human being level and showing who and what the real judaka self is, and how that self BELIEVES that it is better than others are.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 am
I'm not actually here to boost my ego and try to convince people they're wrong and so when you show you've nothing to offer me, I'm out and I believe all that has to be said about the topic of my OP has already been said.
What did you say again? People like you, who think they are self-aware, are BETTER than others are who you say are NOT self-aware. Was that what you have said here in YOUR post?

Judaka wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 am
Won't be posting in this thread again, thx everyone for your contributions.
Considering you did NOT add one shred of evidence of what 'self' is, or even could be, what did you actually post here in this topic called Self-awareness? Other than what I SAW and pointed out.

If you had even some real self-awareness, then you would SHOW fault in what I wrote, and SHOW WHAT needed correcting and HOW to correct it. If you HAD awareness of "others", then you would help them to SEE what IS actually TRUE and RIGHT.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest