Form is Binding Space

[TheVisionofEr]

To recieve a form and become it.

What is a form?

[Eodnhoj7]

To recieve a form and become it.

What is a form?

The self negation of formlessness as definition, with definition being the manifestation of limits that give boundary to a phenomena. This boundary allows the phenomena to be both self contained and seperate from other phenomena. The limit acts as a means of individuation where the phenomenon exists as it's own entity.

[TheVisionofEr]

I must admit, I can't follow your system. As it is unintelligible to me.

[Eodnhoj7]

I must admit, I can't follow your system. As it is unintelligible to me.

Real simple.

You have a house.

It is built of wood.

Is it the wood which maintains the house or the shape in which the house is formed?

It is the shape, the form, of the house which maintains its integrity as a house. Form holds being together, not matter. This is considering the wood which holds the house together, under a form, is in itself composed of forms (particles) which hold the wood together.

The same applies for an argument, it is the linear progression of one assertion to another which enables the argument to exist as valid. A --> B holds the argument together, thus the argument is justified by its form.

[TheVisionofEr]

A house isn't a shape. They comes in all different shapes. The shape has nothing to do with form. Wood is wood no matter what shape it is in.

[Eodnhoj7]

A house isn't a shape. They comes in all different shapes. The shape has nothing to do with form. Wood is wood no matter what shape it is in.

A house is composed of rectangles, domes, pyramids, etc....it is composed of shapes.

Wood is composed of densely interwoven strings....it is composed of shapes.

It is the shape which allows something to exist, as that shape is definition. "Shape" is a tautology of "form".

[TheVisionofEr]

A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.

[Skepdick]

A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.

So we shall bend your manly arm until you recognise the limits of platonic forms and the necessity for telos and essence.

Which parts of a man do you need to cut off for the man to stop being a man?
Which part of a house do you need to remove for the house to stop being a house?
Which parts of wood do you need to remove for wood to stop being wood?

[TheVisionofEr]

Which parts of a man do you need to cut off for the man to stop being a man?

It's not clear. But, we do know that a man without an arm is still recognizably a man.

Which part of a house do you need to remove for the house to stop being a house?

Being a house is somewhat obscure in meaning. If it can serve as a house, it perhaps is one. Aristotle seems to offer good guidance when he says we should not try to be more exact than the subject matter allows. In math, using decimals, we can be very exact. But, in describing paintings it is not helpful to speak at that level of exactitude, or, it even does violence to the thing under study and confuses us.

Which parts of wood do you need to remove for wood to stop being wood?

I'm inclined to say it has to be utterly destroyed. Say, by burning.

[Skepdick]

It's not clear. But, we do know that a man without an arm is still recognizably a man.

Why is it not clear? If you can perform a thought-experiment where you amputated a man's arm, surely you can perform an thought experiment of eidetic reduction?

Eidetic reduction is a form of imaginative variation by which one attempts to reduce a phenomenon into its necessary essences.

Being a house is somewhat obscure in meaning. If it can serve as a house, it perhaps is one. Aristotle seems to offer good guidance when he says we should not try to be more exact than the subject matter allows. In math, using decimals, we can be very exact. But, in describing paintings it is not helpful to speak at that level of exactitude, or, it even does violence to the thing under study.

You are moving the goal posts. In the previous paragraph you spoke of recognizing a man. In this paragraph you are speaking about describing a house.

Lets stick to recognition. Would you recognise a minivan as a house? It can serve as one.

I'm inclined to say it has to be utterly destroyed. Say, by burning.

So if it no longer burns it's no longer wood? You seem to be speaking of oxidation/redox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox

[Eodnhoj7]

A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.

The form is a variation of the prior form, thus what we see between the form of a man, with an arm, and another man, without an arm, is the replication of forms (ie shape of head, erect posture, etc.). The forms may change but there are certain underlying forms which repeat.

[TheVisionofEr]

It's not clear. But, we do know that a man without an arm is still recognizably a man.

Why is it not clear? If you can perform a thought-experiment where you amputated a man's arm, surely you can perform an thought experiment of eidetic reduction?

Eidetic reduction is a form of imaginative variation by which one attempts to reduce a phenomenon into its necessary essences.

Being a house is somewhat obscure in meaning. If it can serve as a house, it perhaps is one. Aristotle seems to offer good guidance when he says we should not try to be more exact than the subject matter allows. In math, using decimals, we can be very exact. But, in describing paintings it is not helpful to speak at that level of exactitude, or, it even does violence to the thing under study.

You are moving the goal posts. In the previous paragraph you spoke of recognizing a man. In this paragraph you are speaking about describing a house.

Lets stick to recognition. Would you recognise a minivan as a house? It can serve as one.

I'm inclined to say it has to be utterly destroyed. Say, by burning.

So if it no longer burns it's no longer wood? You seem to be speaking of oxidation/redox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox

“Eidetic reduction is a form of imaginative variation by which one attempts to reduce a phenomenon into its necessary essences.”

It’s more difficult with a human than with wax. The “philosophical zombie” question doesn't apply to wax. Wax has no life. It has no specific normal shape.

We would need someone with the genius of eidetic reduction to make the approach and investigation and to bring it all out clearly in a report to us.

You are moving the goal posts. In the previous paragraph you spoke of recognizing a man. In this paragraph you are speaking about describing a house.

Lets stick to recognition. Would you recognise a minivan as a house? It can serve as one.

I tend to think most of the time it would depend on the familiarity with the house type. In some cases, though, it would be recognized through seeing that people were using it as a house. Or, better, in the case of aliens where at first we don’t get what they are doing and then we see the idea, I get it!, it is their house. So, it is noetic, not merely visual.

So if it no longer burns it's no longer wood? You seem to be speaking of oxidation/redox.

It’s not clear how far we can go from common sense. If common sense says, those are ashes, they likely are. The object for the chemist is not exactly that of common sense or the life from which the wood first came to be wood.

[TheVisionofEr]

A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.

The form is a variation of the prior form, thus what we see between the form of a man, with an arm, and another man, without an arm, is the replication of forms (ie shape of head, erect posture, etc.). The forms may change but there are certain underlying forms which repeat.

So, you admit a form isn't a form only by its shape?

[Skepdick]

It’s more difficult with a human than with wax. The “philosophical zombie” question doesn't apply to wax. Wax has no life. It has no specific normal shape.

Ironic. Because "human" needs not have any particular shape either if one adopts a cybernetics viewpoint.

To borrow some ideas from present-day sci-fi (Altered Carbon) if consciousness is what makes you "you", and your body is just a disposable sleeve then you can't even put your finger on what a "human" is.

You certainly can't define it. All you can do is recognise it, only you don't recognise "human" - you recognise "self"

[TheVisionofEr]

It’s more difficult with a human than with wax. The “philosophical zombie” question doesn't apply to wax. Wax has no life. It has no specific normal shape.

Ironic. Because "human" needs not have any particular shape either if one adopts a cybernetics viewpoint.

To borrow some ideas from present-day sci-fi (Altered Carbon) if consciousness is what makes you "you", and your body is just a disposable sleeve then you can't even put your finger on what a "human" is.

You certainly can't define it. All you can do is recognise it, only you don't recognise "human" - you recognise "self"

I made the mistake of bringing in "consciousness" as though it were a trait of a human. As though it were rationality. It is, I must admit, not thought like that. It isn't something issuing from an animal. Ergo, it has nothing to do with forms.

From the point of view of the view that the human is an animal endowed with reason, I suppose the test would be conversation. The degree to which the being could understand us would indicate human or non-human. Rational or non-rational in the modest sense of does he understand at all.