General Philosophical discussion

[the.crooked]

Ok, so I am finally doing it. I am just gonna post random writings and other shit to get things started. Some are sort of long, Some aren't. Feel free to respond to anything. A lot of this is just rough ideas for papers for classes or writings I have/am doing just to refine my form.

 

 

the first is a paper topic for my philosophy of mind class. I am responding to a paper that calls for a phenomenological language that accounts for consciousness if we are to have a total theory of mind.

 

 

Nagel speaks of the necessity of a phenomenological language that accounts for subjective experience and consciousness if we are to ever conceive of a sound and total theory of mind. He doesn’t specify what that language is, or how it would look if ever structured. He does venture to say that there hasn’t been one to speak yet. I disagree. There is such a language, and that language is embodied in the aesthetic experience and pieces of art it entails. The art itself is the basic unit of the language and each piece is a different unit of meaning. As each piece is a consideration of consciousness in time and space from a subjective experience it fulfills the necessary functions of the language described Nagel.

 

Does this help in terms of creating a functional theory of mentality?

[the.crooked]

This is just my thoughts on time. It will more than likely be the basis for a final paper for my seminar on Time. It isn't finished at all.

 

Time:

 

• What is time?

• What times do we persist in?

• Are there any that are universal?

• What are our reactions to these times?

• What is the role of consciousness in relation to time?

• Further Implications

 

 

What is Time?

 

Time is the effect of difference. I say this in so much as we recognize time in any varying number of ways, but consistent to them all is that they involve change. Time is the mathematical byproduct of difference in any system. Much as Entropy is viewed, time is such in a system.

 

So then, time is in some way related to change in systems. While this seems ambiguous I will strive to clarify this as I go on. I ultimately believe that Time is in intrinsic part of our conscious perception as governed by the geometric world we exist in and in relation to the mere difference in our abstract thought.

 

My working definition of Time, then, throughout this work will be noted as “that which is the realization of difference in a given system.”

 

 

What times do we persist in?

 

By the question of ‘what times do we persist in?’ I seek to ask if there are any universal qualities which fit the previously laid down definition of ‘time,’ and to what extent our physical and mental states exist in them.

 

 

It occurs immediately and intuitively to me that there are in fact two universal times we exist in. One is a function of our mental capacity and the other is our realization of difference in geometric potential. I will speak first of ‘internal time’ and then that of ‘geometric time.’

 

To speak of the first, I ask the reader to consider individually the letters he/she is reading on this page. This sort of bottom up processing is parallel to difference in thought. If each letter can correspond to a unique thought or abstract conception one holds one can find a simple metaphor for what I call “internal time.”

 

Reading in English has the quality of reading right to left. Text is wrapped around a page to produce a pragmatic way of presenting all the different letters in some particular continuum. This continuum of different characters is analogous to the continuum of our different thoughts. There is one letter, and then there is the next. That is the way of our thoughts as well. For as quickly as I am in one thought I am surely led to the next. It is this transition between differing thoughts that I am currently concerned with. I contend that we all experience this transition of thought, and am hard pressed to think of a situation where one would be able to read the things I am considering if their thought process was so far removed from mine.

 

Thus, our internal time is the continuum of thoughts we transition through based on the difference in respective thoughts.

 

The first thing to speak of such a conclusion is what this intuitively provides us as conscious beings. If internal time is a condition of consciousness then perhaps it can tell us something of the intuitive knowledge we can possess. What could a continuum of difference give us? Numbers, mathematics and geometric understanding. A priori knowledge has been the corner stone of many arguments, but where does a priori knowledge come from? What gives it that unique quality which allows it to remain true given any possibility of multiple realizations? Descarte saw geometric axioms of the bases of any unquestionable knowledge we may have, but he only saw it as clear and distinct, there was no supposition as to why he receives such knowledge so clear and distinctly. I think that it is this inherit internal time that allows us access to this knowledge.

 

I say this because of the way we speak of numbers. I look towards Frege and Bertrand russel to qualify what I will see as the use of a word such as numbers right now. Frege suspects that there are ‘signs’ and each sign has a ‘sense’ about it. ‘Signs’ are words in this case. To each sign there is also a reference accompanying the sign as the actual thing the sign is representing. The sense can be seen as the pragmatic reaction to what the sign is. Numbers, as I take it, have no clear reference, but that their sense is clear and in fact intuitive.

 

When it comes to the question of what Numbers in fact are, I will suffice to leave it at a concept that anything can serve as definition of so long as it displays the essential nature of that number. Essentially that for any given number, should we seek to know that number we can know it in many possible ways. I will give that I am assuming the only way we can conceive of numbers is in relation to something else. There is no reference for numbers, only sense. Take for example the number 2; I could see two bottles on a table, or two birds flying in the air. The reference of the number is realized in the existence of things (bottles, birds) that fit into a class of things that are the sense of the “number 2.” It is through the sense alone that I am compelled to classify these things as the number 2. Through these physically accessible things, I have an understanding of what the number two is. It is important to note that numbers can never be rigidly designated save their sense. That is to say the only way to express a number is to find a putative reference which is fixed by its sense. I know to classify two birds purely because I understand what the number 2 is not because I have some concrete reference of the number.

 

Now that we understand how we express numbers. What is our most direct and immediate access to anything? Thought. From the moment of our conscious inception we are with thought. We are with cognition. Even if not aware of it, by thinking we are creating an entire number system. Remember the continuum of thought I labeled as internal time earlier? Well we are back to it. That we perceive difference in thought gives rise to a completely internal conception of the essential qualities of what we conceive numbers to be. I have a thought; one, I have another thought; two, I have yet another thought; three, ad infinitum. Once there is a number system, there is a certain mathematics about it. There are certain rules which arise when such a system is conceived.. I will refer the reader to Frege, et al for an exposition on how mathematics stems as objectively true from a given set of axioms, such as that of a number set.

 

Internal time, to sum, is our conscious progression of thought in a continuum defined by difference in thought alone. It is from internal time that we gain an understanding of numbers and such a priori knowledge. Aside from this there are two things I would like to note particularly about internal time. There are no standard units by which to determine internal time. Thoughts, perceptions, etc. are sustained so long as they subsist within our conscious recognition. As such, internal time, being designated by changes in such mental events, is not clearly delineated and has no discernable average in the units of change. This is leading to the last conclusion about internal time, it is truly ethereal. Because it is contained within the subjective limits of our mind internal time has no extended correlate. This will become important later.

 

 

Next is the concept of geometric time. I am going to speak of the geometric dimensions, ranging from Newtonian to Quantum in respect of their reference, but will speak to only four for them for simplicity’s sake and my own sanity. We usually conceive of the four dimensions in Relativistic terms as: 1 dimension; a line, 2 dimensions; a plane, 3 dimensions; a volume, 4 dimensions; a volume in time. Time is the fourth dimension by which things are said to exist in. I believe that time, in a certain sense, is not a dimension but in fact an intrinsic quality of geometric dimensions at all which is consistent with our previously laid out definition of time. Let us start at the base and move upwards. What is it to conceive of no dimensions? Surely there is some null-set to the positive dimensions we actively perceive. I see this zeroth dimension as any expression of the infinite. Be it all encompassing (infinity), or all exclusionary (void), there is a way to conceive of it that will serve us well. A point is characterized as a dimensionless concept expressed by specific coordinates. It exists only as a concept defined only by the limits of infinite divisibility. Take a second to try and conceptualize in your mind a point. What do you see? A region you identify as a point? But a point can’t be a region for it does not exist in any dimensions. Zoom in on your thought further, on a more specific point in that region. Do you see a point? Or again a Region? This, I imagine, will prove to be quite the recursive task for anyone. One can infinitely look to a smaller space as indicative of a point, but they will never reach it for they can always reduce the scale of their examination. The problem of trying to imagine a point is conducive to attempting an understanding of the antithesis of dimensions, infinity. This relation to the infinite will become much more important later.

 

Let us move up the dimensional ladder. From the zeroth dimension; a point, we move to the first dimension; a line. A ‘line’ is a collection of points which in name express a certain relation of those points. Let us now look at the possibility of difference. Does a point, as a concept, contain difference? As an expression of the infinite or the void, I should think not. To be all inclusive or all exclusive annihilates difference. What of a line though? I think that if a line is a collection of points as we have previously stated then a line’s most divisible form is to that of a point. The point then, while only conceptually existent, acts as the unit of difference for a line. If there is difference then surely there must be some relation of time, as per our definition of time. Here we have a basis to believe that in this difference lies another time, geometric time. From a line to a plane to a volume, there is an ever-present ability to discern difference in such dimensions, and geometric time is purely a function of that difference. I see time in this sense as the possibility of difference in position. By dimensions being an amalgamation of an infinite set of points there is an infinite number of possible moves one can take in name to recognize a difference in position. Space itself is the infinite set of possible positions a body can occupy. Consider the act of walking as an example of such. We can only think of walking a distance with it taking us time to do so, but were we not to move we would still perceive time to exist because the possibility of moving is always there as intrinsic to the nature of space. Simply said, space exists for us to move around within. Again time, as I said, is not difference, but an effect of it. So while described in this sense as a possibility in difference, our current discussion of geometric time is consistent with the original definition of time.

 

If time, in the geometric sense, is viewed as the possibility of difference as I have so described it to be, then how do we experience this time? Let us recap; there are two universal times that we as extended and mental beings are subject to. We have direct access to the first universal time because of its subjective and internal nature, but the second is correlated to the extended world in which the first occurs. While our thoughts, etc. are not extended there is some way in which we know our extended nature. The next section will look at how it is we come to know the possibility of difference in dimensional nature as geometric time.

 

What is the role of consciousness in relation to time?

 

Position is the relatable name that any extended body can have in respect to another extended body. We express position in any 3-d space by a group of coordinates representative of a point in that set of possible positions. As beings, what is our connection to this extended world, its coordinate system and the sense of time inherit to it? I am intuitively compelled to answer “our bodies.” Simply put, we know geometric time because our bodies exist in it. How then do our bodies act as a transitional element through which we know geometric time?

 

I will go out on a limb here and make a harsh claim about the philosophy of mind: Whatever it is that we take mentality to be, it is internal to our bodies. We perceive the boundaries of our identity to end at the physical substance we call skin. In so much as this is the case I will contend that we can ascribe a physical sentience to not only our extended nature but our consciousness. Not as fundamentally separate but in fact inseparable. As long as I have been aware of my own consciousness, I have had a body to speak of. I see our bodies, then, as the extended aspect of consciousness. This gives rise to a necessitation of geometric time through consciousness. Because we have bodies that we attach to our consciousness we necessitate the space for those bodies to exist. The necessitation of that space also, as seen through our analysis of dimensions, implies the necessitation of geometric time.

 

This does nothing to explain how we conceive of this time, however. There must be some manner in which interaction with space imposes an impression of geometric time on our ability to cognate. While spurious, I have one small foray into one possible answer to such a quandary. Movement: as we exist we are perpetually in motion; in relation to the ground, in relation to other people, in relation to the sun, etc. I find this attribute of existence to be too universal to ignore.

 

Aristotle speaks of time as consisting of Past and Future. Initially there is consideration of the ‘present’ as a defining period of time, but it is eventually concluded that the ‘present’ is merely the transition between past and future. The present is the instantaneous moment in between what we perceive is the future and what we perceive is the past. Another definition of a point is an exact moment, an instant in time. Perhaps this idea can help us with this idea of movement. A simple analogy will allow us to go further; the ‘initial position’ of a body can be seen as ‘the past,’ while ‘possible position’ can be thought of as ‘the future.’ Let me list several agreed upon statements to this point:

 

I. Consciousness has an extended quality, namely that of the body associated with a given subjective consciousness.

II. Space is an infinite set of possible positions a body may exist in.

III. These positions are expressed as points.

IV. Bodies can be assigned positions by perceiving said bodies as points in space.

V. Space has analogous “position” words to the “time” words ‘past’ and ‘future’.

VI. Geometric Time is the possibility of difference in position that a body may have or take.

VII. Motion is the realization of the difference in possible positions in space.

VIII. All bodies are perpetually in motion in relation to each other and putative positions in space.

IX. Time is effect of difference.

 

From these I can hope to show that our consciousness perceives ‘past’ and ‘future’ in geometric time through movement. I will work from the catalyst of our geometric perception to our internalization of geometric time.

 

I think there are two things that allow us to make a connection between our perception and geometric time. First, is the correlation of ‘points in space’ and ‘points in time’ as critical to the bridge between perception and space (V). Secondly, that movement in space is in fact the catalyst of the effect of geometric time on conciousness. If each thought, regardless of conceptual length, is a base unit in our interpretation of internal time, then for all intensive purposes it is a ‘point in time,’ if a specific kind of time. Our bodies occupy space and as such have a certain positional identity, or we exist at a ‘point in space’ (IV). As we have already said our bodies and our consciousness are intrinsically inseparable. We have also said that all bodies are in motion irrespective to what relative position that motion is based on. Can we say that our consciousness/body is in perpectual motion as we have described all bodies as being? I think so. This is the critical step. If our body/consciousness is always moving then it is always stepping through the transitional state of the present or, this instant point in time, by virtue of its movement in space. The correlation between points and space and time can be seen here. Our consciousness is in effect, the transition between points in space. We are aware of geometric time because our consciousness is always in the state of positional difference. I stand to believe that we will forever be subject geometric time should we never be able to separate consciousness and the body. I refer to philosophy of mind to deal with this issue, should it actually be possible.

[the.crooked]

This is a response I made from a discussion I found online about the movie Suicide Club. If your not familiar with it, see it. It's awesome. Anywho:

 

 

This is just my take, I think that there is a connection to Bhuddism as expressed, but it is its subversive connection to contemporary society, not as overt as many are ascribing it. While the film is hyperbolic in its imagery and direct report, I think it is about much more subconcious issues than just spirituality in general. I am gonna respond to the original post point by point, just for clarity and continuity. I am not doing this to show he/she is wrong or that he/she doesn't understand, just comparison of subjective experience of film, thats all. I wanna try to avoid the pretension the original poster referrs to, but we'll see if I can.

 

 

anywho, here we go.

 

 

"I have been submerged within Japanese culture in my own home, on the internet, in the books I read, in linguistics class, and, yes, even in Japan. And I still found this movie to be totally senseless. Even if I understood its reasoning, that doesn't mean it had any real coherent point to it.

 

I may be North American and I may be Christian, but that does not mean I do not understand Japanese culture and mannerism. And lemme tell you: This movie demonstrated no true mannerisms kept by the Japanese. It was, in fact, a total over-dramatization."

 

To speak first of the role of the observer as critic to the film, is almost to understand what I think this film is about. Yes, you as a north american christian have just as much to offer in understanding and interpretation of this film as anyone else. Presupposition of understanding the culture is only needed when exploring nuance of the aesthetic presentation I think. I will come back to that later. I hope that by qualifying my statements as my interpretation I will remove the air of arrogance the original poster sees critical thought to sometimes have.

 

Next, I do not think the film ever makes claims about the practicality the characters or the world they live in. The hyperbole in action and thought of the characters is a decisive choice of the film maker. As this is their artistic product I can only believe that the actions and dialogue of the characters is just as precise and intentional as the strokes of an impressionist painter. So, for now, give me that what he chooses in the film is not an imperfection but infact so precise as to need more than just a prima facie consideration.

 

 

"There's this odd bit of misinformation going around (or maybe it could be called a fad) that makes the Japanese out as totally centered, or even half way associated, with Bhuddism and/or Shintoism and thus are considered zealously spiritual or superstitious. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese population is just as lapsed as the North American Catholics. So it's out and out wrong to claim this movie was overtly Bhuddist and/or Shinto based--Even if it was trying to be, it failed to express it. Even if Japan was still very rooted to Bhudda and Shinto, people would still not be this extreme."

 

I think the connection to bhuddism/most eastern Philosophies, is not to show how overtly steeped the culture is in these ideas but to show how ideas that were pervasive at an earlier time in the culture are dealt with through the progression of society in time. Which, unto itself, gives creedance to one of the ideals he is trying to discuss. So again, give me this and I think I can make a compelling argument for this film.

 

You say something that is very telling and that is right on about the film, "...the Japanese population is just as lapsed as North American Catholics." I think you are absolutely right, and so (I think) does the director. All of the dialogue outside of the voice on the phone is specific to non spiritual discussion. It is all practical. Take the family for instance. The dinner discussion is focused around the pop group on telivision. Even in light of the occurences in their immediate environment, they still choose to speak of lighter, less existentially enveloped concepts. It is also a focus on shared experience. The discussion about the group is expressive of the connection between the family irrespective of their subjective experience. It is one of the only times in the film that you see people experiencing the same thing, outside of viewing death. So, I think that a one dimensional interpretation of the director's intention, as to say that he wanted all of the people in the film to be viewed as overtly spiritual or that this all the film is concerned with, is a bit short sighted. As film is a direct visual report of the world, consideration of the physical actions of the characters should be given. I think there are very limited situations in which the physical actions of the characters are expressive of the philosophical considerations of the film. And each of those specific situations are those where the director expressely intends them to be. I will talk about these situations in a bit.

 

So, to continue, the characters as seemingly secular entities expressed by the content of their dialogue, is speaking to the end you so well drew parallel to in your original post. The nature of the film's attention to the spiritual and philosophical tenets of Eastern Philosophy should then be taken in that context. Think about your parallel to modern western culture. Even though the spiritual awareness of society as a whole has greatly decreased since the introduction of those ideals to the world, they still persist in the social structures of the societies themselves. While most of America should be considered secular, much of our interactions are governed by non-secular morality or non-secularly determined social practices. I am an athiest that lived in Texas all my life, but I recognize (perhaps even more so because of my abstraction from religion) that so much of our society is intertwined with the spiritual underpinnings that were originally prevalent in early American culture. That is to say, it is again, hard to dismiss these spiritual ideals as something not to reflect upon in context of a given contemporary social structure. So, to me, your statement that it is ineffectual to discuss philosophical and spiritual standpoints because they are anachronistic and non impactful to contemporary society is problematic. So, if we concieve of this film as a reflection on the subconcious social reaction to some of the fundamental philosophical concepts that were dealt with early in Japanese culture, it becomes somewhat of a different thing. At the very least, a bit more substantive than the position you claim the movie is taking.

 

"The most retardedly non-sequitur segment of this movie that tried to tell you that the Japanese are extreme was when Kuroda's family committed suicide, which was written out as an attempt to say that they were losing their "connection" to Kuroda and thus they didn't want to deal with it. So they played Follow the Leader and killed themselves to escape the monotony and such. Not only does the fallacy of them killing themselves over this trail back to my last point about a myth regarding Japanese extremist spirituality, but also makes no sense continuity-wise. His family didn't care that much before about being "impersonal" (they weren't), so why should they care at that point? And if his son was the one who made the call, why was his daughter and wife affected as well? Or if it was just the daughter that made the call, then why was the son/mother affected? Or if it was both kids then why was the mother affected?"

 

I would like to specify that I take the family scene to be the conclusion of the entire preceeding segment of the mass suicides ocurring simultaneously in society. So, I think it is important to discuss that entire segment as a whole. This is the first time we are shown an example of how action is expressive of the philosophical positions being discussed. As we have already determined, it is at least interesting to now try and entertain the philosophical considerations of the film. So, I will start by stating the putative philosophic viewpoints I think he is considering. First is the issue of transcience and that nothing is beyond the concept of change. I'm sure we can agree that most eastern philosophies, ranging from Bhuddism to Taoism are focused on instantaneous reflection and experiencing within the moment. Beyond this is the relation of conciouscness to transcience and what can we do in our lives to come closer to a true understanding of that idea? I think these are the real issues he seeks to understand in contemporary Japanese society. Not as that everyone is concerned with these ideas, but more in the psychoanalytic sense of looking at these ideas as being completely internalized by a social subconcious. So, let us try to examine this scene with this in mind. Let us ask these questions: Does the scene seem to conform to the previously discussed subject matter and structure of the film's intent? Do the actions of the characters in these scenes seem reflective of this social internalization of the existential issues discussed in the aformentioned philosophical standpoints? Etc. I will try to show that they do and how.

 

This is my perception of the family suicide scene. This is the last build up to the climax of the film. At the surface one would think it is the climax, the culmination of the story in relation to the perspective of Kuroda, but it is the last moments of the scene that is infact the climax. It is not the realization by Kuroda that his family is dead but when he chooses to kill himself that is in fact the climax. So what of the entire scene? What do the extreme actions of the people committing suicide tell us? What does their dialogue while commiting these acts speak to? I believe that each different scene of suicide is reflective of the different ways in which the over arching philosophical issues are internalized in society and acted upon. That each different interpretation culminates in the death of the subjective internalizer is particularly important. I feel as though the director is trying to suggest the inevitable conclusion of many philosophies concerned with such things, that all existential issues are answered in death. I will come back to this a little later.

 

While the scenes preceeding the family episode are presented as segments occuring inbetwixt eachother, I will discuss each scene in their totality seperate to their concurrent happening. Later I will speak to why they are presented as simultaneous moments.

 

So often is nihilism ascribed to Eastern philosophies that it should be considered here as well. It helps for clarity of terms to recognize this relationship. I feel it is descriptive of the relationship between early eastern philosophy and that of 20th century existential philosophy. The ascription of transience as one of the main characteristics of existence could potentially lead to a position that it is impossible to give value to any one moral position for it is no better than the next because of the inevitable change in conceptions of morality.

 

The first situation is the group of women rationalizing death as progressive for society, so as a means to not allow for the potential to detract from that progression. The specific statement, "Kill yourself before you commit murder," is particularly telling. The women in the scene sort of chuckle after this statement is uttered. The sort of tongue in cheek oration of their statements is culminated in the laughter of the women right before they actually choose to put the nooses around their necks. The conversation between the women before their death is tantamount to what I feel is a discussion of morality in the face of nihilism. Humor in post-modernism is commonly discussed in terms of the ironic. So it makes sense that the conclusion of the women’s shared rationality (rightness of a specific moral claim as justification for a choice in life) is an expression of the irony inherit to the possible rightness of those claims to begin with (nihilism). It is certainly contingent to post-modernism as a reaction to nihilism and other existential discussions as fore-runners to post-modern thought. So, if the director is trying to explore the reactions of contemporary(post-modern) society in light of their subconcious internalization of fore-running existential issues, then this scene is perfectly reflective of that goal.

 

The death of the comedian in front of the crowd is again a discussion of shared experience. There are two levels of consideration that this scene deserves however, one for the way it answers some of the original questions of the film, and what it says about the film as a whole.

 

First, I think that one of the main points in the film is that death is the only truly shared experience we can have. This is in relation to subjective experience. Again this is a reaction to transience as intrinsic to existence. So, let’s consider one of the conclusions of 20th century existentialism as seeing the subjective essence of life as the defining and limiting factor of our experience. If this is the case, then no experience between two people is the same, save perhaps one. What is the antithesis to existence? If subjective experience is analogous to the condition of life (existence), then what is the analogue of objective or shared experience? Quite presumably one may conceive that it is death. So by creating a public death, again in the form of humor via comedian, we are allowed access to the one shared experience.

 

It is also interesting to consider this in terms of Nietzsche’s discussion of the role of the greek tragic play and the chorus contained there in, as presented in The Birth of Tragedy. Essentially that the chorus is reflective of societal reactions and embodiments of the philosophical dialectic between Apollonian and Dionysian impulse. The dialectic itself splits all human pursuits into either Apollonian or Dionysian. He claims that all Apollonian pursuit is reflective of our want to share subjective experience as to verify our beliefs about existence. However, he says that to fully come to an understanding of it we must experience its counter-position. That through contradiction we find true meaning. And so the Dionysian impulse comes to embody anything that is antithetical to an Apollonian pursuit. If we see life as contingent to Apollonian experience than the anti-thesis of life will provide the true meaning of life. So again we arrive at this need to consider death as telling about life. It is important to note the idea that shared existence would be Dionysian by nature in its opposition to subjective experience as Apollonian. Aesthetic experience, as described in this case, is the pursuit to convey a certain subjective experience. A painter creates paintings for others to view a window into their subjective experience. Or in this case, the director has made the film, but rather than being expressive of his subjective experience, it seems to be more about subjective experience at all. Or rather, the irony of subjective experience. Interesting though, is that aesthetic experience presupposes an audience and is thus inherently tied to the relation of subjective experience to one instance in existence.

 

Consideration of why Nietzsche chooses to speak of aesthetic pursuit mostly in the form of the tragic play is useful in consideration of this scene in the film. The chorus is the reaction to the Dionysian experience of the tragedy encapsulated in the play itself. As reflective of the collective experience of the events of the play, the Chorus is used to suggest something about the reality of the events contained in the play. Eventually Nietzsche discusses that in time the chorus eventually becomes the audience of the play itself rather than being expressed to the audience in explicit terms of the written chorus of the play. This occurs at what he calls the death of the Tragic play and the genisis of the New Attic play. So, humor is again seen as correlated to the progressive response to existential issues. And as such we understand the physical situation of the Comedian respective to the audience. So, even the structure of the scene is reminiscent of discussions held by western existentialists. If the comedian’s ultimate intent is to expose the audience to his death, the director seems to be doing this to put death on the stage. The death is the play, per se. The difference is that rather than using specific tragic instances in life, the focus on the event of death itself seeks to be more general and inclusive. Rather than speaking to specific elements of life, the director is speaking to the totality of existence by offering its antithesis as the sole focus of consideration. So, if death is forced upon the audience in such a way that confines it to a specific moment in their subjective experience, the presentation of such is an attempt to understand the totality of our experience by terms of its contradiction; or rather, the introduction of the Dionysian impulse into the Apollonian structure. This is supposed to expose the true nature of reality by forcing what is not into our immediate experience and thus present it in the truest form we can perceive.

 

Also important is how presentation in of this scene in film form lends itself to an implicit concept of collective experience. That the plural audience is all viewing the one experience of the actors performing is an obvious attempt at creating a shared experience. The audience is forced to consider the totality of the play and what it is suggesting from moment to moment. That the movements of the actors occur in real time as we perceive our own actions to be only strengthens its relation to using the instantaneous moment to convey a shared experience. This is again the introduction of the Dionysian impulse by structure of the Apollonian. This is interesting when applying, again, notions of transience to the issue. If focus on the moment is of all importance, than an exercise to that end would be useful if not desirable. Aesthetics, then, can be called a study into the validation of belief in reality through trying to give an expression of continuity while accepting the notion of transience. It would stand to reason that the better the aesthetic exercise is at getting increasing numbers of subjective experiences to focus on the same aesthetic experience in simultaneity; it would be more desirable in its effect then others. This is why I think Nietzsche chooses the tragic play to discuss the issues he has in mind. I think, then, that the scene of the comedian’s death is an ode to the aesthetic pursuit. In terms of Buddhism and other eastern philosophies: It is an ode to Buddhism in general. It could easily be argued that Buddhism is an aesthetic pursuit designed to exploit our subjective experience so that we come to have an understanding of it through its contradiction.

 

The self awareness of the medium in relation to its own existential intent is again a sort of parallel to post-modernity in reflection of existentialism. It seems to me to be the scene where the director provides the most intent of this film; to substantiate their aesthetic attempt by presenting the epistemological and ontological position for consideration by means of the aesthetic pursuit itself. This application of the medium to itself is self substantiating if its ontological pursuits are correct in their aim. So, if you consider the film as a piece of art at all, it immediately becomes substantiated in its attempt to be such and perhaps in its ontology as well. I find this idea particularly compelling in its relation to post-modernism. If post-modernism is the application of subjective experience to any ontological end, then the application seems intuitively self sustaining. This seems to me to be the case in this sense, and I should hope it seems that way to others at this point.

 

There are some things to clear up and summarize at this point I suppose. The connection of the film to Buddhism and other classical eastern philosophies is not the overt connection previously discussed. It is in fact an exploration into the subversive ways that a prepost-modern era philosophical viewpoint has become expressed in a culture it seemed to presuppose. That is to say, the film is about how the existential issues of early eastern philosophy are internalized in the social subconscious at an early period of Japanese culture and are now reflected in such systemically nuanced fashions that the only way to conceive of their contemporary existence is to play out the social implications to such an absurd fashion.

[Dawood]

yeah, so, I read the first few lines and realized I'm way too busy for this, sorry crook.

catch you on the flip side. bruh-man

[russell jones]

i'd like to get into it too, but no time this week, too many papers to grade. Maybe next week, I'm on vacation.

[the.crooked]

maybe some activity at the end of the weekend?

[lord_casek]

good thread. not gonna be longwinded, so here goes:

 

anyone seen "the secret"?

about the universal laws of atrraction,

quantum physics, and manifesting your

own destiny according to universal laws.

 

i found it pretty neat. not sure if it's supposed

to be an inspirational video or not.

[the.crooked]

here is a bump with two final papers I have written. One is for a psychology of language class. It is an experiment proposal, mapping feature binding on to letter abstraction in graffiti. Cliche, sure, but it is still sorta interesting.

 

The second is much more important to me. I wrote a final for my philosophy of mind class which is sort of about some of the major principles that my undergrad thesis will be about. Essentially I argue that all languages will fail to comply with certain percieved standards for capturing a total theory of mind given subjective experience.

 

Here they are:

 

[ATTACH]40870.vB[/ATTACH] Phil Mind Final

 

[ATTACH]40871.vB[/ATTACH] Psychology of Language Final

FINAL FINAL.doc

Experimental Proposal Final Psych Language.doc

[the.crooked]

as the cricket sounds the background...

[SneakV2.0]

phenomenological

 

words like this are the sole reason why i chose not to study this sort of subject....

[the.crooked]

lol. big words are just funny. i think thats one of the reasons i started.

[russell jones]

Ok, so I am finally doing it. I am just gonna post random writings and other shit to get things started. Some are sort of long, Some aren't. Feel free to respond to anything. A lot of this is just rough ideas for papers for classes or writings I have/am doing just to refine my form.

 

 

the first is a paper topic for my philosophy of mind class. I am responding to a paper that calls for a phenomenological language that accounts for consciousness if we are to have a total theory of mind.

 

 

Nagel speaks of the necessity of a phenomenological language that accounts for subjective experience and consciousness if we are to ever conceive of a sound and total theory of mind. He doesn’t specify what that language is, or how it would look if ever structured. He does venture to say that there hasn’t been one to speak yet. I disagree. There is such a language, and that language is embodied in the aesthetic experience and pieces of art it entails. The art itself is the basic unit of the language and each piece is a different unit of meaning. As each piece is a consideration of consciousness in time and space from a subjective experience it fulfills the necessary functions of the language described Nagel.

 

Does this help in terms of creating a functional theory of mentality?

 

I finally have the time to respond to this thread, no that I've finished my Master's thesis.

 

I think your terminology may need to be clarified so that I personally can understand your concepts. When you use the word "art," how do you define it?

[russell jones]

This is just my thoughts on time. It will more than likely be the basis for a final paper for my seminar on Time. It isn't finished at all.

 

Time:

 

• What is time?

• What times do we persist in?

• Are there any that are universal?

• What are our reactions to these times?

• What is the role of consciousness in relation to time?

• Further Implications

 

 

What is Time?

 

Time is the effect of difference. I say this in so much as we recognize time in any varying number of ways, but consistent to them all is that they involve change. Time is the mathematical byproduct of difference in any system. Much as Entropy is viewed, time is such in a system.

 

So then, time is in some way related to change in systems. While this seems ambiguous I will strive to clarify this as I go on. I ultimately believe that Time is in intrinsic part of our conscious perception as governed by the geometric world we exist in and in relation to the mere difference in our abstract thought.

 

My working definition of Time, then, throughout this work will be noted as “that which is the realization of difference in a given system.”

 

 

What times do we persist in?

 

By the question of ‘what times do we persist in?’ I seek to ask if there are any universal qualities which fit the previously laid down definition of ‘time,’ and to what extent our physical and mental states exist in them.

 

 

It occurs immediately and intuitively to me that there are in fact two universal times we exist in. One is a function of our mental capacity and the other is our realization of difference in geometric potential. I will speak first of ‘internal time’ and then that of ‘geometric time.’

 

To speak of the first, I ask the reader to consider individually the letters he/she is reading on this page. This sort of bottom up processing is parallel to difference in thought. If each letter can correspond to a unique thought or abstract conception one holds one can find a simple metaphor for what I call “internal time.”

 

Reading in English has the quality of reading right to left. Text is wrapped around a page to produce a pragmatic way of presenting all the different letters in some particular continuum. This continuum of different characters is analogous to the continuum of our different thoughts. There is one letter, and then there is the next. That is the way of our thoughts as well. For as quickly as I am in one thought I am surely led to the next. It is this transition between differing thoughts that I am currently concerned with. I contend that we all experience this transition of thought, and am hard pressed to think of a situation where one would be able to read the things I am considering if their thought process was so far removed from mine.

 

Thus, our internal time is the continuum of thoughts we transition through based on the difference in respective thoughts.

 

The first thing to speak of such a conclusion is what this intuitively provides us as conscious beings. If internal time is a condition of consciousness then perhaps it can tell us something of the intuitive knowledge we can possess. What could a continuum of difference give us? Numbers, mathematics and geometric understanding. A priori knowledge has been the corner stone of many arguments, but where does a priori knowledge come from? What gives it that unique quality which allows it to remain true given any possibility of multiple realizations? Descarte saw geometric axioms of the bases of any unquestionable knowledge we may have, but he only saw it as clear and distinct, there was no supposition as to why he receives such knowledge so clear and distinctly. I think that it is this inherit internal time that allows us access to this knowledge.

 

 

Your analogy of thought processes to reading is apt in my opinion. However, I feel that my thought processes are multitracked, I perceive of the words on the page, the sounds in the room, etc. But underneath, and many times partially hidden, are the processes that digest information, compare it to previously acquired, float among implications, summon memories, smells, feelings.

 

Perhaps we literally travel in time as we do this, creating universes that consist of the constructs of our memories filtered through our current situation. Are those comparable to universes that would presumably be created through time travel?

[russell jones]

lol. big words are just funny. i think thats one of the reasons i started.

 

I want to purge the use of the word "discourse" in academics. First off, the sound of the word leaves a bad taste in mouth, like a bad peanut. Secondly, the word has become a flag that says: "look at me, I'm an academic and my discussions with other academics are so beyond you that I need special terminology to describe something that can easily be described with common language."

 

Just my opinion.

[Theo Huxtable.]

there's no way i'm gonna read all of that.

 

i read enough text books, essays, and listen to lectures as it is.

 

[russell jones]

there's no way i'm gonna read all of that.

 

i read enough text books, essays, and listen to lectures as it is.

 

 

Yeah, maybe we could get the abridged version, with just the essential elements?

[MAR]

Anybody here into stoic philosophy? Read some Zeno and Epictitus and Im now reading Seneca.

[the sun y el sol]

time is the past proofs and the probable possibilities

[Smart]

time is the ocean

[lord_casek]

i've read a ton of alan watts

and may still have some of his great lectures in mp3 format

if anyone is interested.

[the.crooked]

I will have three big papers I have written this semester posted up here in the next couple days if anyone is interested. One is about science fiction and how we apply scientific theory to common technologies. Another is for a philosophy of mathematics course. It will be about how we learn the use of the word "all," and what that entails. And the last will be a comparison of either Deleuzian notions of "Difference and Repetition" to the analytic philosophy concept "Ontological Relativism," or Bergson's notions of "Duration and Pure Time" against the philosophy of mathematics concept of "Pure progressions, eg the natural numbers" as posited by Paul Bernacerraf.

 

Just a teaser. If anyone wants them I will post them or just pm the file to someone. Iono. Basically, is it worth my time to put it up here?

[Juan Fuentes]

u should be thinking about scanning them than typing it over here,way quicker.

philosophy of mathematics sounds not common,interresting.

[the.crooked]

I would post them as attachments. I would not post it scanned or as text in here

 

So I finished the sci-phi technology paper and the philosophy of mathematics one. The Phil Math one is much more interesting than I thought it would be. It is about the relationship of the word "all" to two different forms of the verb phrase "to count." Rather, between intransitive and transitive counting, and what such counting says about the word "all."

 

If anyone wants it, I'll post it up here.

[tutleone]

i myself have come to many realizations in the past year. ive been doing alot of thinking, even when i didnt want to, which is redundant because we are always thinking.(thank you weed!!)

but anyways, i feel as if through all of this thinking, ive reached a new, heightened level of consciousness, now i can be thinking about something, and at the same time evaluate what im thinking anout as to whether it holds any real value or not to the subject of my thoughts.

 

now, i can converse in my head, and work out entire problems im having in my head. ive awaken my "voices" so to speak

 

another realization ive come across is that of our reality. is it real, how can we be sure? these questions have been running through my head for the past few months now. sometimes i think that wha if what we are, all that we see, all that we do, isnt what it really is. i think this because in truth, reality is only how we see it. i mean, what we believe in how the world works may be totally off of what it really is. alot of things in life are accepted because they they have been instilled in us for thousands of years, and our minds have adapted to work in this way.

 

i feel as if ive broken off from the worlds accepted reality and have fallen into my own, for i see things completely different from others.

 

AAAAHHH shit i lost my train of thought...

 

i will vent my thoghts another time.

 

in my opinions, reality isnt a reality at all, and there is no reality because everything is percieved in a certain way. we see things as what they are, but in another reality, they might not be the same thing.

 

for example: how can there be a standard set time for life if life isnt set on a steady path, things spontaneously happen all the time, in disrespect of the concept of time.

[Dawood]

turts,

 

time is based on the sun and it's rotation....Also on the moon and it's cycle in other parts of the world. Time is fixed here, meaning earth, but outside of our earth, Imagine....How would you set the time?

[the sun y el sol]

turts,

 

time is based on the sun and it's rotation....Also on the moon and it's cycle in other parts of the world. Time is fixed here, meaning earth, but outside of our earth, Imagine....How would you set the time?

 

 

a day to god is a thousand years

[Theo Huxtable.]

time is just a categorization and a way in which we sequence events, created by humans solely based on earth's rotation and revolutions around the sun, which is divided into "hours" "minutes," "seconds," "nanoseconds," etc. keeps things organized and keeps us from going crazy.

 

outside of the spectre of earths rotation/revolution, on a universal scale, to say what the universal category of "time," or "spacetime," is a lot harder to say. to a realist and a physicist; time, or spacetime (which is one and the same), is more of a dimension. time itself is seen as a physical dimension, because it is also interconnected with the envelope of space itself. usually seen as the fourth dimension. what mankind visualizes is the third dimension, but he cannot "see" the fourth dimension but can only use mathematics and hypothetical diagrams to measure it. certain sectors of the universe, particularly within the event horizon of black holes, spacetime as we know it may not exist -- or is so distorted that the current laws of physics cannot measure it. everything from light, to matter, to time & space within the event horizon of a blackhole is "bent," stretched, and distorted beyond human comprehension.

 

the first dimension, second, and zero dimension can only be measured with mathematics, but not physically seen by the human eye. the first dimension is considered a line, the second dimension is a plane, the third dimension is a cube/space, and the fourth is spacetime, or a tesseract. from what i've come to understand, zero dimensions are singularities and points of existance that exist in places like the centers of black holes and supposedly from the beginning of Big Bang. it's an immeasurably small point of existence (some say the size of an atom), with perhaps an infinite amount of density, in which time/spacetime (as we know it) doesn't exist

 

i'm rambling and all over the place so i'll end there

[the.crooked]

Theo- is time just not a progression of difference? in any sort. there is a time about anything which changes.

 

Think of your example of spatial dimensions. The reason we feel that the dimension of time is necessarily connected is because space is what defines that time for us. It takes me time to cross a room. Essentially any movement in space requires time. Each point on a line represents a different point in time. Or on a plane for that matter. Also, what is a line but an infinite collection of points or singularities? And to that end, what does that notion provide us about the word or concept of the present? If any "point" in time can be divisible to an infinitude of possibilities, how can we ever understand the singular notion of "present" that we seem to have. Or is the present a range of passage?

 

sorry, rambling, Ill come back to this in a bit.

[Theo Huxtable.]

Theo- is time just not a progression of difference? in any sort. there is a time about anything which changes.

 

Think of your example of spatial dimensions. The reason we feel that the dimension of time is necessarily connected is because space is what defines that time for us.

 

i agree. can time be defined without space? probably not. i guess that's why they use the word "spacetime" rather than space (3rd dimension) and time (fourth dimension). can the 3rd and 4th exist without each other? [can space exist without time, and can time exist without space]

 

so, in the law of physics, is the seperation of the third and fourth purely hypothetical and used in theory, but not in realtime?

 

if the bigbang started as a singularity, and exploded shortly thereafter, that is supposedly when space & time began.

 

It takes me time to cross a room. Essentially any movement in space requires time. Each point on a line represents a different point in time. Or on a plane for that matter. Also, what is a line but an infinite collection of points or singularities? And to that end, what does that notion provide us about the word or concept of the present? If any "point" in time can be divisible to an infinitude of possibilities, how can we ever understand the singular notion of "present" that we seem to have. Or is the present a range of passage?

 

sorry, rambling, Ill come back to this in a bit.

 

great questions

 

"Also, what is a line but an infinite collection of points or singularities?"

 

true -- to make a line you need a series of points/existance. i would then say that each dimension is a building block, or "step", to the next dimension. singularities are required to form a line. a line is required to form a plane. a plane is required to form a cube and give volume. volume is required for spacetime. and so on.

 

"And to that end, what does that notion provide us about the word or concept of the present?"

 

i honestly don't know what you mean by "present." does a "present" exist? or is that merely loose-fitting humanistic analogy to define an approximate time period? when a person refers to a "present" time period, he or she is actually not referring to a stagnant singularity, but more-or-less a certain time period that he or she perceives as being a short confined time-category or era, in relation to a larger time period (perhaps a lifetime, a century, a decade, all of human history, etc.).

 

i would think a realist form of "present" would only exist as a singularity, but not within the envelope of spacetime.

 

"If any "point" in time can be divisible to an infinitude of possibilities, how can we ever understand the singular notion of "present" that we seem to have. Or is the present a range of passage?"

 

complicated question. i'm not sure what you mean by "range of passage," but i'm guessing it has something to do with, singularities needed to exist inorder to transcend, or "passage "further up to the next dimensions? without the singularity -- nothing can exist. i guess this goes back to what was said earlier -- that perhaps a present (singular existance) has to exist in order for time to exist; again the building blocks, the foundation. as they say, the big bang was merely a singularity -- where time and space didn't exist -- that was a realist form of "present." when that singularity expanded, so did the creation of spacetime.

[the.crooked]

I think you caught the intent of my questioning about the present quite well. I was trying to suggest that there is a certain underhandedness when we use the term. Rather, the period of time we are referring to is an ever changing thing that whence we denote it it becomes the past rather than the experiential present we named it to be.

 

 

as for dimensional building blocks. I tend to think of it like this: It is not that each builds the other, but that they all necessarily exist this way. To believe in a point necessistates an infinite space, because you can always zoom in more to look at a point. That is to say, when one concieves of a point, it is an ever ongoing process, as an abstract entity it is almost infeasible for us to believe in being able to think about them, eg, you can always zoom in on a point. Thus to me, the idea of one bears the others. A point alone gives the entirety of point to line, line to plane and plane to volume, thus time to move within the space at all.

 

To me one of the more interestign questions that this type of discussion gives is what about abstract realms that we predict with mathematical systems but have no was of emperically confirming their existence. Let alone things that have absolutely no way for experiential qualification. (eg, the eleven or so dimensions of M-theory, etc.)