What is a form?To recieve a form and become it.
Form is Binding Space
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
Re: Form is Binding Space
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.
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
I must admit, I can't follow your system. As it is unintelligible to me.
Re: Form is Binding Space
Real simple.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:24 am I must admit, I can't follow your system. As it is unintelligible to me.
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.
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
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.
Re: Form is Binding Space
A house is composed of rectangles, domes, pyramids, etc....it is composed of shapes.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:29 pm 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.
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".
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.
Re: Form is Binding Space
So we shall bend your manly arm until you recognise the limits of platonic forms and the necessity for telos and essence.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.
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?
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
It's not clear. But, we do know that a man without an arm is still recognizably a man.Which parts of a man do you need to cut off for the man to stop being a man?
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 part of a house do you need to remove for the house to stop being a house?
I'm inclined to say it has to be utterly destroyed. Say, by burning.Which parts of wood do you need to remove for wood to stop being wood?
Re: Form is Binding Space
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?TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:28 pm It's not clear. But, we do know that a man without an arm is still recognizably a man.
Eidetic reduction is a form of imaginative variation by which one attempts to reduce a phenomenon into its necessary essences.
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.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:28 pm 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.
Lets stick to recognition. Would you recognise a minivan as a house? It can serve as one.
So if it no longer burns it's no longer wood? You seem to be speaking of oxidation/redox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedoxTheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:28 pm I'm inclined to say it has to be utterly destroyed. Say, by burning.
Re: Form is Binding Space
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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:35 pmWhy 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?TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:28 pm It's not clear. But, we do know that a man without an arm is still recognizably a man.
Eidetic reduction is a form of imaginative variation by which one attempts to reduce a phenomenon into its necessary essences.
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.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:28 pm 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.
Lets stick to recognition. Would you recognise a minivan as a house? It can serve as one.
So if it no longer burns it's no longer wood? You seem to be speaking of oxidation/redox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedoxTheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:28 pm I'm inclined to say it has to be utterly destroyed. Say, by burning.
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.“Eidetic reduction is a form of imaginative variation by which one attempts to reduce a phenomenon into its necessary essences.”
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.
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.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.
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.So if it no longer burns it's no longer wood? You seem to be speaking of oxidation/redox.
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
So, you admit a form isn't a form only by its shape?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:46 pmThe 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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm A man can have his arm cut off and still be a man. The form remains even with the change of shape.
Re: Form is Binding Space
Ironic. Because "human" needs not have any particular shape either if one adopts a cybernetics viewpoint.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:00 pm 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.
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"
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Form is Binding Space
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:04 pmIronic. Because "human" needs not have any particular shape either if one adopts a cybernetics viewpoint.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:00 pm 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.
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"
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.