On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> I try to avoid the words like "reflexive" or "reflection" in informal
> talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
> I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing with him myself. But I
nevertheless feel, from their posts, that this is *not* what some
people have in mind when they use the term 'exists'.
> I'm afraid
> that sometimes you are near the 1004 fallacy.
That may well be, but unfortunately I tend only to discover specific
examples of this by trial and error. But having done so, I try to
hold on to the discovery.
> But of course
> your intuition grew perhaps from non comp or non lobian origin.
That's definitely the case.
> (I see now what could be the comp lobian "observer moments", and will
> say more in a special purpose post.
I look forward to it.
> Coming back from Siena, I know now that all my work on Church thesis is
> more original than I thought (meaning: I have to publish more before
> even logician grasp the whole thing ...).
You have a hard row to plough!
> Is "us" = to the lobian machine?
I just meant observers in general, using myself as the model.
> > and I've been trying to convince Torgny
> > that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for
> > modes of existing.
>
>
> But each point of view (hypostasis) defines its own "mode of
> existence". Now Plotinus restricts the notion of existence for the
> ideas (here: the effective objects which provably exist in Platonia).
> That is why both God and Matter does not really exist in Plotinus
> theory. Of course God and Matter do exist, even for Plotinus, but it is
> a different mode of existence.
I'm frustrated that I don't seem to be able to communicate what I mean
here (I don't know if this is an example of 1004 or not). I meant
that just because we can imagine something in a gods' eye way doesn't
(for me) entail that it exists in any other way - what I called (but
I'll desist!) 'reflexively' (i.e. with reference to itself, or just:
for itself), which Brent was content to call existence simpliciter.
This intuition of course just begins with knowing that *I* exist for
myself, which implies that others exist for themselves, which
ultimately implies that everything exists for itself - 'the One' being
the ultimate expression of this. I don't mean to equate 'exists for
itself' with consciousness, but to say that consciousness emerges as a
complex aspect of such self-relation. I'm convinced both that you
know what I mean by this, and also that it can be expressed in the
Lobian discourse (though not by me).
> > 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it
> > seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the
> > quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular
> > process of self-reflexion.
>
> ?
That was just another way of putting what I said above: IOW, that
everything is a relativisation of the One, - i.e. the primary
existent-for-itself. I see now that my '1004 fallacy' is just that
when I'm not sure I've been understood, I try to say it another way.
But this is confusing. I see the value of your sticking to your
methodology, but then the problem for the generalist is that he has to
work very hard to follow you. But that of course is my problem not
yours.
> > Self: because there is no other;
>
> ?
>
>
> > reflexion: because there is no other relation.
>
>
> ?
Another example of (over)precision perhaps. I sometimes think a lot
of time could be saved if some of these dialogues took place in the
same room! I just meant that, given that all existence-for-itself
derives from relativisation of the One, the notion of 'other' itself
becomes relative (i.e. everything is really just an aspect of the One:
there is no 'other' in any absolute sense). Consequently, all
relations are relations of the One with itself: i.e. self-relations.
The reason I thought this might be important, originally, is that ISTM
that it had a fundamental relevance to mind-body issues. I felt that
the whole 'dualist' problem came from not seeing this. Dualism is
clearly not relevant when everything is an aspect of the One, so that
the relations which constitute both mind and matter are
self-relations.
I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of
the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!)
that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect
of itself.
David
>
>
> Le 10-juil.-07, à 14:09, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> It
> >> is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
> >> first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than
> >> some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate.
> >
> > Doesn't this strike you as perhaps consistent with what I've been
> > saying about self-relation, or reflexive existence?
>
>
> I try to avoid the words like "reflexive" or "reflection" in informal
> talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
> I tend to agree with what Brent said. I feel I understand what you say
> most of the time, except when you try to be (over)precise by
> introducing too much vocabulary in this informal context. I'm afraid
> that sometimes you are near the 1004 fallacy.
> When I say that sometimes I understand you, it means that I can
> represent what you are saying in the lobian discourse. But of course
> your intuition grew perhaps from non comp or non lobian origin. It is
> difficult, by many aspect the lobian first person is anti-comp (and
> certainly not lobian).
> (I see now what could be the comp lobian "observer moments", and will
> say more in a special purpose post.
> Coming back from Siena, I know now that all my work on Church thesis is
> more original than I thought (meaning: I have to publish more before
> even logician grasp the whole thing ...).
>
>
> > IOW, quanta - as
> > they appear to *us* (how else?) -
>
> Is "us" = to the lobian machine?
>
>
>
> > exist reflexively.
>
> That does not make sense for me, unless you just mean that the
> appearance of quanta appears when we observe ourselves close enough, in
> a third person way or (most probably) in a first person plural way.
>
>
>
>
> > Comp, like any
> > 'TOE', is a "gods' eye view",
>
>
> Hmmm.... The physicalist TOE are like that. But I think it is a defect.
> Anyway, a comp TOE *has to* relate *all* points of view with "God"'s
> one.
>
>
>
> > and I've been trying to convince Torgny
> > that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for
> > modes of existing.
>
>
> But each point of view (hypostasis) defines its own "mode of
> existence". Now Plotinus restricts the notion of existence for the
> ideas (here: the effective objects which provably exist in Platonia).
> That is why both God and Matter does not really exist in Plotinus
> theory. Of course God and Matter do exist, even for Plotinus, but it is
> a different mode of existence.
>
>
>
> > We may nonetheless ask - with great care - "what
> > might the consequences be if our situation were - in some (tricky)
> > sense - to look like this from a gods' eye view?" But this is a
> > (tricky, tricky) mode of enquiry, not a mode of existing.
>
> A rich lobian machine can make the complete scientific study of the
> theology of a less rich machine, and then she can lift it cautiously
> and interrogatively on herself.
>
>
> >
> > 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it
> > seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the
> > quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular
> > process of self-reflexion.
>
> ?
> What I can say is that qualia and quanta are a product of lobian
> self-reference, like all hypostases, with the notable exception of the
> One (Alias Truth).
>
>
> > Self: because there is no other;
>
> ?
>
>
> > reflexion: because there is no other relation.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 10:27:55 PDT