Capable's Method

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:29 pm

Fixed Cross,

In Chinese medicine, anger leads to joy.


How so?

Anger is, supposedly, pain turned outward. The only way anger can turn to joy is if the anger itself is recognized as pain and then dealt with.
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:31 pm

By the way, I am not saying what we are doing in the other thread will help you. It is for my own amusement, my own fun. It may or may not be helpful to your method.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:32 pm

origami wrote:I'm not your father, man, and I'm not the law. I'm just telling you some shit.

Lol.

Yeah I did get the threads mixed up sorry.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:35 pm

origami wrote:By the way, I am not saying what we are doing in the other thread will help you. It is for my own amusement, my own fun. It may or may not be helpful to your method.


What helps is the notion of juice. And also, the actual pressing of it, the practice. Ive been absent from this for a long time, relatively.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:37 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Fixed Cross,

In Chinese medicine, anger leads to joy.


How so?

Anger is, supposedly, pain turned outward. The only way anger can turn to joy is if the anger itself is recognized as pain and then dealt with.


They work with a cycle of organs, a sequence between them that is supposed to bring out the best qualities in each.

Ill give it to you:

Heart - Anger
Spleen - Worry
Lungs - Sadness
Kidneys - Fear
Liver - Anger.

The idea in the method is that to feel each in sequence clears out the toxins.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:02 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: like pretending Montreal is actually paved with real roads, yet still not driving a Ferrari.




I can tell you one thing though, the Pezer ain't done yet.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:59 pm



Posted a bunch of well articulated thoughts in your own thread. I will repost them here, as they are an advance on what I had articulated so far on system architecture.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote: - the degree of inexplicity.


Which itself is made explicit. By calling it quantum.

The only difference between 'quantum' and 'thing' is the implication of quantity. The only property of a quantum is that it holds a value.

A value in terms of force, yes.
There is what is explicit;
but force no longer suffices at this level of demonstration;
What is needed on top now is factors of behavior and circumstance that do not follow from the simple notion of force.

The simple notion of force no longer cuts it. That is the conclusion that none but philosophers have drawn.

(Will to power is not simply 'will' or 'power' nor is it simply 'will' to 'power' - it breaks down into actual value. Not quantitative value.)

So what is needed for a full calculation of any situation is a knowledge of force and its context. Which is impossible, except in a closed system, and then only theoretically possible if you can measure without opening the system, but ok -

Context might be framed as 'form';
ultimately this is endless, this form, as to all quanta the context is ultimately, as shown in the post you quoted, indefinitely extended, at least when one is tasked with the positive and absolute (Aristotelean) identification of one quantum as another; a task which will thus not be accomplished.

This indefinite extension of context to any event (some 'measurement of a quantum', some demonstrated existence) - is also why things do not eternally recur, and why they are more powerful than anything which would be soft enough to, consequentially, end, so as to be able to return. Fractals express this hardness of existence vs the softy cyclical notions used by N at the point of his compromise.

The pragmatic value, including the possible technological value, of this discernment vs the simple law of equation that makes the apparatus run, depends entirely on the scope of things - when addressing situations with an aim to master them, on whether there is a strong discrepancy between the subtlety of the quantification system and the subtlety of the nature of the subject. So, in the case of programming a Commodore 64, the value is close to nil, in as far as the software is concerned, In the case of weather prediction, it is close to being completely necessary (value absolutely positive, "1"); in the case of a quantum processing, its value would be, at least, something to be considered, if not even instrumental to the power of a quantum processor per se, namely I think, actual thought, that is to say creation, working 'out of the box'.

Now there is so much information being processed simply by the mainframes that govern us that more than sufficient 'chaos' is present to allow for all kinds of "AI" to occur, but Im saying that in theory a quantum processor itself should be considered an open system, or I cant imagine how it would be stable without the consideration. A quantum processor should basically 'know its place', be in a way self-aware to even regulate its contents at all. And what is self-awareness in the basic sense? Many ways to phrase it, but 'a sense of danger' might be the most relevant to a computer.

"Danger in the streets, danger in the heart -"
N


I have no idea why you aren't satisfied with the value of this - and I would like to say that doesnt matter, but it kind of does, as that figures into the drive I have to cover more ground. I guess Im just going to be thankful for the prod, and the resistance.

Thats another term for you. An observer is by necessity a resistance, not purely a conductor.
Any conductor, as it happens, must be some kind of resistance as well.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:19 pm

Your innovation isn't "force." That's a half-assed copy-paste from Nietzsche.

Your innovation is the particularity in the system.

Of course, you can go the route of saying the system requires force, but there is no force at smaller levels, so it was all a mistake and the real truth is some prophetic revelation you keep harping on. But that's inventing a problem that wasn't there to apply a solution that doesn't exist.

The real truth, the real insight, is about particularity. This is good. To then give a universal name and category to particularity is an insult to your own self, unless you are just joking, in which case who am I to judge.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:44 pm

This is what I meant by Capable needing too much to be relevant.

Why include Nietzsche at all? Why not just work the system as is? It has great promise. I myself see and agree with you that none of it requires Nietzsche and that that is a very unique accomplishment after Nietzsche.

Because you put so much effort and time into artificially inserting Nietzsche somehow, it is now a useless mess. But the insight is very clear and real. If you study physics for 10 years, as just one example, granted, the only example I can think of, it can be of value.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:07 pm

origami wrote:Your innovation isn't "force." That's a half-assed copy-paste from Nietzsche.

Your innovation is the particularity in the system.

Of course, you can go the route of saying the system requires force, but there is no force at smaller levels, so it was all a mistake and the real truth is some prophetic revelation you keep harping on. But that's inventing a problem that wasn't there to apply a solution that doesn't exist.

The real truth, the real insight, is about particularity. This is good. To then give a universal name and category to particularity is an insult to your own self, unless you are just joking, in which case who am I to judge.

Completely misunderstood me dude. Of course I never said that there is no force at smaller levels, I said that force is not by itself sufficient to the "nature" (potential of behavior) of the quantum. Which is what makes a thing science, that it allows us to know the potential behavior. You do understand the difference between "sufficient to" and necessary for", I presume?

Yes, I know what my advance it. That is precisely the point. Force isn't adequate to definition. It doesnt give the particularity.
Still you're the only one here who can even so much as feather-touch me. I have to deal with this I suppose.

origami wrote:This is what I meant by Capable needing too much to be relevant.

Why include Nietzsche at all? Why not just work the system as is? It has great promise. I myself see and agree with you that none of it requires Nietzsche and that that is a very unique accomplishment after Nietzsche.

It is based on Nietzsche, without Nietzsche its full scope cant be understood. "Force" is a stray-dog form of "will to power".
WtP gives is the inclusion of the context, but folded up in rhetoric so that it took me to recognize it for the scientific formula that it is. Im by now fairly positive that you won't have the patience to think this through, to work with this. But thats on you.

Because you put so much effort and time into artificially inserting Nietzsche somehow, it is now a useless mess. But the insight is very clear and real. If you study physics for 10 years, as just one example, granted, the only example I can think of, it can be of value.

It may be that it confuses you to see it in light of N. I have to think about whether I will make that my problem, but Ill take it into consideration - no doubt you're not the only one who likes to see N removed from the project of a philosophical science - I can see I may have been too demonstrative of my deference to the man but still - yes, I advanced on him. I didn't eradicate him. I dont 'try to be relevant' by deferring to the one philosopher that ever forced me to become greater. I simply give what is due.

But, given the nature of the world, its lack of interest in and capacity for Nietzsche, and the fact that N owes to people he doesnt mention too, I still may take your advice and leave him out. I delight too much in the full complexity of the thing. I aid and abet nature too much in her efforts to hide, maybe. That is my allegiance to her, could be. What man, what men are worthy of this insight? Only of course the Uebermensch. And he's not here on the goddamn forum.

CAPABLE!!!
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:20 pm

To be clear, I addressed your question - your question was just based on you conflating adequacy and necessity.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:24 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Completely misunderstood me dude. Of course I never said that there is no force at smaller levels, I said that force is not by itself sufficient to the "nature" (potential of behavior) of the quantum.


It's the same thing. Force fails as a qualifier for a quantum. Of course, the only qualifier for a quantum is in the name, namely, that it ban be counted.

Fixed Cross wrote:Yes, I know what my advance it. That is precisely the point. Force isn't adequate to definition. It doesnt give the particularity.


Right, same shit. Made up problem. Professional physicists have already not been bothering with it for decades either.

Fixed Cross wrote:Still you're the only one here who can even so much as feather-touch me. I have to deal with this I suppose.


I used to have this problem. I now would never demean myself so as to frame my opponent as a given person.

Fixed Cross wrote:It may be that it confuses you to see it in light of N. I have to think about whether I will make that my problem, but Ill take it into consideration


We advise it srongly.

Fixed Cross wrote: no doubt you're not the only one who likes to see N removed from the project of a philosophical science -


I don't know about these other fellas, but I am telling you, if you fail to actually account for Nietzsche, and you do, then you butcher your importation from Nietzsche and sully your own innovation. You are trying to see Nietzsche in terms of form, and we won't go into all that phenomenology shit right now, it's part of that disgusting postmodernist shit that you still somehow manage to make genius out of, but you should be already separating inspiration from product.

Fixed Cross wrote:I simply give what is due.


The sentiment is understood and appreciated, but you went too far. Gratitude has that tendency. It speaks well of you. But it is a mistake.

Fixed Cross wrote:The fact that the full complexity appears to you as a joke -- I need to love that.


If only that. Let everything be lost but a sense of humour.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby origami » Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:26 pm

Let me put it to you this way, because fuck it, ego is not a dream:

It is few people who can claim gratitude to Nietzsche as a colleague.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Capable's Method

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:27 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:This is a thread on the topic of the mind of Capable, as he revealed it to me in the duration of my correspondence with him.

I will start with a quote of the article he wrote on Kitaro. It is not so much what he says, the implications of which are infinite, but how he attacks a subject. I've learned from this guy that it is possible to not be Nietzsche, or Nietzschean, and still be a philosophic predator; Capable unites the worldly with the metaphysical predation, he surpasses thus a great deal of historical philosophers. The fact that Capable so swiftly fully understood my own supreme accomplishment, something which no other man has managed that I know, quickly evoked the question of what else he is capable of. Being more than ten years younger than I am it is logical that he had, in that time, from 2011 to say, 2017, his best, most productive philosophical years ahead of him. We fell out over Trump in the end, the whole phase of immersing in politics was less than ennobling, politics being politics - and every attempt here to explain what 'was the case' will be equally debasing - Capable always maintained a noble rage, which Sloterdijk sees as the foundation of consciousness. His yet ununfolded mind could naturally tolerate no lies at all, no trickery, none of that sort of thing, and he was not inaccurate in his prognostications, even though James S Saint was right as well, where the two of them are fundamentally incompatible thinkers as shown in a phase where Capable was investigating the merits of RM, a study I will never know the depths of but which ended in Capable's utter denunciation of the whole system as something that produces incredibly deep subtle errors, which vo can fairly easily indicate by the lack of the notion of subjective value as primacy to consciousness and thus to the experience of reason and this to all that goes by the name "Reason", but here I go again -- still the same old G -- James was right too in what would happen. But he got the reasons slightly wrong. Or he was just playing me. In any case, this thread is not about James S Saint but about the philosopher that presumably likes to hide in the capacity of depth for its own sake, which would be nature's abode. Here is a quote, from an early thread on the forum he built with his the help of his spouse, thanks be to her as for that, by the way.

I dont know if I will cone back to add to this thread. I want to, as there is a literal infinity right there for the grabbing, in the published exhibitions of Capable's Method. All that is of value, all that matters in philosophy and much outside of it as well (as what matters in philosophy is after all the world in its fullest sense) Weary Locomotive once said, is method. Here's a method of attacking a subject so as to extract value from it in the cadre of producing a philosophy of the future.

Note that the following is by no means the best writing Capable produced, it is simply one of the first ventures into a subject I had no knowledge of that I encountered. And everything that he wrote in these years is seething with life. The post makes references to and use of self valuing logic but simply as one would use a fork, which is not to eat soup.

All that follows this is a copy of post 1

CAPABLE ON KITARO
Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:29 pm

“I hold that the self is consciously active when it is interactive, and its interactivity is constituted in a dialectic of mutual negation and affirmation of self and other. Self and other, subject and object, are constituted in the individual acts of existential consciousness. These acts are self-originating and yet co-originating, too, as forms of dynamic, reciprocal expression. It is in this structure of biconditional, interexpressive, mutual revealment of self and other that an individual act is an individual act.”

...“[The biological world] exhibits this principle of self-expression; it reflects itself within itself. I articulate this difference [between the biological and the physical worlds] by defining the biological world as a self-transforming matrix moving from the formed to the forming, through the dynamic transactions of organism and environment. The organic realm constitutes a world that exists and moves through itself in this way. It is a process of infinite transformation through the dynamic equilibrium of organism and environment—that is, contains its own self-negation and self-affirmation within itself. This self-vectorial process constitutes the direction of time . . . The biological world thus has the form of a contradictory identity, possessing its own organic centers within itself and infinitely determining itself in and through these centers.”


Kitaro divorces the notions of space and time from each other, space being the dimension of immanence and extensivitiy, time being the dimension of transcendence and intensivitiy. Space being the realm of simultaneous existence, time being the realm of successive existence. The "physical" world is essentially the spatial world, while the biological world is the temporal world. Time is reversible in the physical world, while time is irreversible in the living, biological world. 


The “absolute contradictory” identity of the self involves the contradiction between “the many and the one”. The self, attempting to reconcile its biological element with its physical element (its world and socio-history) is thrown into the contradiction between the many (the physical world of reversible time and distinct entities existing in space) and the one (the biological world of irreversible time and unique self-expressing entities existing in time). Human acts express themselves, the biological self-identity from which they arose, but they also express the world, and therefore through human consciousness the world exhibits “both a spatial and a temporal character”... “As an order of simultaneous existence it appears as a form of self-negation, and yet it is infinitely occurring in its temporality. Affirming itself in its temporality, it transcends its own spatial character by being a creative transformation.” The temporal unity of the biological being across time, from the perishing of one spatial moment to the next, gives this living being its creative-transformative character; even as it is always perishing, it is also always being reborn. And it is out of these "biological centers" vectoring together through time which the conscious self emerges as the self-expression of the operations of these centers and by their continuity in the world.



This leads into a perspective that is at basic not unlike Parodites’ daemonic consciousness: 

“In human consciousness the world is bottomlessly self-determining and creative, a transformational process which has the form of the contradictory identity of space and time. I refer to this self-forming, creative world as the self-determination of the absolute present. I hold that it is only in this dynamic form of contradictory identity that we can truly conceive something that moves by itself and is self-conscious.” 


And as he continues, we can see how this also adopts and moves into a perspective along the lines of what value ontology proposes: 

“The dynamic reciprocity of objective and subjective dimensions comprising the act of humanly conscious expression is monadological in this existential sense. It is unintelligible as the mere action and reaction of physical objects (that is, grammatical subjects in the framework of theoretical judgment). It must be the expression of a self-determining and self-conscious act that simultaneously reflects the world as a unique perspective of the world. When I say that the conscious active individual exists in a structure of dynamic expression, I mean precisely this. That I am consciously active means that I determine myself by expressing the world in myself. I am an expressive monad of the world. I transform the world into my own subjectivity. The world that, in its objectivity, opposes me is transformed and grasped symbolically in the forms of my own subjectivity.”


We see how he arrives at what we have called self-valuing. He also situates this self-valuing within the larger “objective” world that in its physical dimension (its spatiality) both opposes and also conditions the valuing self. From the vantage of the world itself, human-like consciousness’ are created in order to give the world greater expression and depth, to (re-)interpret the world constantly in terms of a dimension which is foreign to the physical world itself, the dimension of the organic, of irreversible, unique and absolute time. The active consciousness expresses the world through itself while it is expressing itself through itself; the contradiction of the one and the many, subject and objects. Both the world and the self-consciousness take on a contradictory character: the world takes on the character of temporality, which is otherwise entirely foreign to it, while the self-consciousness takes on the form of spatiality, of simultaneous physical existence, which is foreign to the temporal condition of the self. 



Kitaro grounds religious experience in the ideation of God, God being the principle by which these two contradictions can meet each other and thus may enter into productive relation. Human experience of the eternal is grounded in our understanding of death, of the inevitability of the total oblivion of form, which of course includes us, and in this insight the experience of eternal life is also born at the same moment as this is just the intimate and endless novelty of understanding and creativity, which has been named, among other things, philosophy. 


Against Kant’s transcendental forms of the understanding, Kitaro maintains that “content without form is blind, form without content is empty” and he locates here a principle of conscious growth and over-growing progression toward higher forms and orders of experience. He grounds this, quite simply, in thinking. The “thinking subject” arises as a representation of the essential contradiction of the self, as that which “cannot become an object of itself”, the operation is indelibly linguistic, the production of semantics and grammar. The term "grammatical subject" is a tautology. The self makes objects of its experiences but it cannot make object of itself, it cannot self-grasp and self-identify because its objectification and identification are situated in a reciprocal biconditional relation that can never become resolved or grounded, but remain always an irresolute chaos. This irreconcilability, this juxtaposing into contrast of incommensurate elements of conscious experience, this is what we experience as "thinking". Kitaro's absolute time of the self-determining act is also an absolutely divided moment, a space which cannot be entirely transferred into the dimension of temporality, and a time which cannot entirely be translated into the dimension of spatiality. Kitaro therefore defines the thinking subject in the negative definition as that part of the active consciousness which is unable to be made object of by our (objectifying-semantic) consciousness itself. 

And yet, despite this insight, this purely negative definition does not suffice for Kitaro, and he wishes to proceed with a positive designation, wherein he finds a principle of conscious expansion: 

“We can say that the self exists as the point where that which cannot become an object in one dimension becomes an object in another dimension—perhaps some higher dimension”. 


This is indeed profound. Although he does not seem to draw the furthest implications from this, he locates a principle by which the self, trapped within its own impossibility for self-objectification and self-knowledge, is thrown at the junctures of this subjective interruption into alternate dimensions, from space to time, from time to space. From one purview within conscious expression to another, as the forms of this expression shift from one moment to the next. Where the conscious self meets an impassable wall it does not halt, some aspect of its experience always re-configures and escapes toward a new dimension of expression, is thrust into itself again endlessly as into a new avenue of its own self-expression. The negative condition of the self, its irreconcilable contradiction is also therefore understood to be also the condition of this progressive expansion of consciousness, its continual transformation into what which it presently is not. Transpositional logic is what Kitaro calls the logic of this contradictory consciousness existing as time within space, as space across time; objects within a subject, a subject as objects; and the thinking self which lies at the junction between the need for objectification and the threshold of impossibility of self-objectification. And of all this takes place within the temporal field of meaning of human world-history which gives rise to the possible forms in which our conscious acts ultimately take shape. The biological is always partially physical-spatial, but more so it is always noetic, teleological and dynamically reciprocal with its objects, cast outside of time... Kitaro again: "Self-conscious being pertains to noetic self-determination. Our conscious being has meaning in this framework. Each conscious act appears as a self-contradictory center of the noetic field of predicates. Reflection is nothing other than the self-reflection of the noetic field within itself. Our conscious acts are grounded in such a standpoint. That is the basis on which we are self-conscious and moral."

The wider "noetic field" being that out of which individual organic self-determining centers rise and take shape, are colored with character and meaning. The irreconcilability of this self-determining active consciousness takes place within a wider noetic-teleological stage of human world-historical meaning, and is in fact, according to Kitaro, nothing but a particular manifestation of this field at a given point within it: 

"It is in the historical world-time of the absolute present that the monads form the individual expressions of the world. They are both self-originating and co-originating in the matrix of the absolute present. Our own activities as microcosms of the world may be thought to constitute unique events in world-time while simultaneously representing the Ideas as the world's self-negation (that is, self-expression) in world-space. Our activities thereby acquire universality and value. Conversely, the Ideas, as the world's own expressions and values, entail a negation of negation: they are affirmative, actual, self-forming, and at the very least always have moral significance. That is why our activities in the historical world are always, and in various senses, both ideal and actual. The self-conscious world of each individual human self is a self-determining monadic world; but as such, each self is a self-expression of the historical world. Therefore each self-conscious world is a momentary vector of historical world-space, which mediates its own objective self-determination within itself, and infinitely determines itself through its own process of self-expression."


Kitaro succeeds as developing a rational understanding of the basic structure of consciousness and of the structure of this consciousness' mutually-conditioning relations to the world, both to the physical world of objects as well as to the human history-world of ideas, values and meaning.


And finally, further to the above:

All life arises from the fact that it transforms itself by containing its own self-expression within itself. It is first biological and instinctive in a spatially-predominant way—that is, it possesses itself as a form of self-negation. It becomes historical life as it becomes concrete in a temporal dimension—as a self-affirming form within a transforming matrix. In historical life there is always this dialectic of affirmative and negative: the former is the material world, the latter the world of consciousness, in the transpositional structure of the contradictory identity of matter and form . . . I articulate the world of consciousness, which phenomenology defines in terms of intentionality, as the self-determination of the temporal dimension of the world, having this transformative structure of the identity of contradiction. Life-structures that contain the perspectives of the world within themselves, as structures of the world's own expression, may be regarded as instinctual in the predominantly spatial sense, but as conscious acts in their temporal character. Again, they are self-conscious structures in that they are co-originating expressions of the world . . . Reason itself is nothing other than a self-determination of the temporal dimension that always has the character of being a predicate that cannot be subject. We are rational in the self-determining predicate, or universal. Reason functions intentionally, as something temporally, consciously, and immanently enfolding the grammatical subject—that is, the object—and as having its own self-immanent telos.


*All quotes taken from Nishida Kitaro's book Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview


We'll need a context, of course. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46393
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users