• ucarr
    254
    the real determined by negating unreals180 Proof

    This looks like the two (supposed) polarities get expressed, one in terms of the other. This is entanglement. Contrast ≠ independence. Your configuration of entanglement here implies some complexities that might undermine your goal of categorical separation. Speaking generally, the mission to establish absolute separation_independence of things is more idealist than real. We know this because gravity, a fundamental force, entangles everything, even within the realm of a priori cognition.

    Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?
  • Jackson
    1.6k
    Speaking generally, the mission to establish absolute separation_independence of things is more idealist than real.ucarr

    Well said. Fully agree. Myth of the atomic object.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    I'm not following you. "Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the same trunk of "metaphysics". E.g. like space and negative space are aspects of the same geometry.
  • Xtrix
    3.5k


    The question of all questions is: what is?

    Or: what is being? So all questions are questions about being/beings.

    This according to some thinkers, anyway. And those I happen to agree with.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    The question of all questions is: what is?Xtrix
    In the apophatic tradition I think this ur-question is answered, rather than merely addressed, by reformulating it 'what necessarily is not' e.g. .
  • ucarr
    254
    I'm not following you. "Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the trunk of "metaphysics". E.g. like space and negative space are aspects of the same geometry.180 Proof

    Your above claims are congruent with the claims that motivated them i.e. my previous claims. This shows we're surveying the same general terrain of data, but our conclusions are different.

    The certainty of separation of our bivalent logic: on/off; yes/no; open/closed; negative/positive introjects some of the idealism component of metaphysics.

    It's clear to me that the positivity of positive is linked to and dependent upon the negativity of negative (and vice versa) as part of a network interweave. Speaking ontically, you can't know one without the other.

    So, per your statement,

    "Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the trunk of "metaphysics".180 Proof

    it's clear two branches of the same tree are not pure, categorical polarities, utterly without intersection.

    Bivalent "opposites" are distinguished by contrast, however, contrast ≠ independence.

    I do think you can establish & exploit logically the contrast between entangled valences.

    I don't think you can use a bivalent methodology to establish the categorical certainty of one valence & the categorical impossibility of its opposing valence.

    This is why QM keeps telling us one gate can be simultaneously open/closed. As the lynchpin of quantum computing, QM simultaneity, the anti-thesis of bivalence, seems to be working.

    One of the shortcomings of modal logic is its role as a blindfold opaquing the limited domain of paradox.
  • Xtrix
    3.5k


    I responded in that thread.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    I don't think you can use a bivalent methodology to establish the categorical certainty of one valence & the categorical impossibility of its opposing valence.ucarr
    I don't use "a bivalent methodology", just a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream'. You're reading your own concerns, ucarr, into what i've expressed here which misreads my stated goal.
  • ucarr
    254
    I... use...a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream'180 Proof

    I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals)180 Proof

    You're reading your own concerns, ucarr, into what i've expressed here which misreads my stated goal.180 Proof

    Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others? It's not the case that we members here have all confined ourselves to our own bubbles.

    In fact, this very conversation is specifically concerned with interrelationship (certainly from my end, and, I think, also from your end).

    My conclusion diverges from yours. Is it a misreading of what you've written? Let's see.

    You say above you conceive of categorical principles via negation.

    The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

    If you want to categorically negate something, is taking a route to that goal by way of selfsame something the best way? In parallel, let's say I want to get to heaven. Is going through hell the surefire way to arrive there? Granted, it's a surefire way to arrive at an appreciation of heaven. This is so because hell is an extreme contrast to heaven. But I'm not seeking appreciation of heaven. I'm seeking the heaven itself. Let's say a guide tells you the way to heaven is through that door over yonder that has the word "HELL" printed onto it. Would such a directive give you pause, or would you rush through the door?

    I use the above to elaborate contrast ≠ independence.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others?ucarr
    Not in a genuine dialogue where understanding mutually different positions is the goal. I've very little interest in merely exchanging monologues which I find is unproductive and arrogant. When I reply to your posts, for instance, I'm taking issue to what you're written as best as I can tease-out your meanings. Only then, when confirmed by your responses, do I criticize according to (A) any problematic reasoning and/or (B) questionable assertions contained therein which are contrary to my own concerns. To lead with my own concerns is more or less to shadowbox with myself and therefore to learn nothing. I don't come to TPF just to merely monologue like fools and trolls on do on Reddit.

    My conclusion diverges from yours.
    Yet I've not argued for or against any thesis, therefore – so far only describing an alternative approach to"metaphysics" – have not proposed any "conclusions" here; and yet, you contend "my conclusion diverges from yours". Your disagreeing with your strawman, ucarr, not with anything I've written. :roll:

    You say above you conceive of categorical principles via negation.

    The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through
    Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics. If you're not going to read what I write for comprehension, ucarr, that's quite all right but let me know so I won't waste any more time answering your questions.
  • ucarr
    254
    I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals)180 Proof

    Do you claim in the above you are not propounding a method of discovery by what you conclude to be proper procedure?

    If I understand correctly what is meant by thesis (even if only somewhat) i.e. a statement or theory that is put forward (herein by you exploited as a means of self-identification which, by the way, I asked of you amidst my (alleged) oblivion to who you are), then your thought-provoking response to my query, re: your metaphysics, contains an implicit argument for the above-mentioned thesis.

    Do you not claim below (as an additional support to the above) that one type of methodology, apophaticism, is superior to another, cataphaticism?

    because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory.180 Proof

    If you're willing to acknowledge having passed judgment upon two types of methodology, then proceed to explain how your thesis about which of the two is correct is not based upon the above, which, to me, reads like a premise.

    The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

    Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics...
    180 Proof

    ap·o·pha·tic | ˌapəˈfadik |
    adjective Theology

    (of knowledge of God) obtained through negation. The opposite of cataphatic.

    Maybe you should take another look at how apophatic is defined.

    I don't deny my ever present self-interest. It's called staying alive in a dangerous world.

    To you I say, "Don't jump to hasty conclusions." This especially in light of your claim to the effect that,

    I've very little interest in merely exchanging monologues which I find is unproductive and arrogant.180 Proof
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    Questions are to Answers as Possibilities (darkness/imagination - doubt) are to Actualities (light/reason - certainty).
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    :yawn:

    ... as Variables are to Values.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    ... as Variables are to Values.180 Proof

    On target! Spot on, mon ami, spot on!
  • ucarr
    254


    You rendered me an important service when you responded to my closing statement, chapter 01. A timeless universe, as implied by my original statement, and made explicit by your feedback, looks like a fatal flaw to me too.

    I've addressed the issue of the timeless universe.

    I need your feedback on chapter 02. If you're willing to give feedback, any flaws you can point out will, again, render me an important service.

    I hope you'll say "yes." My writing needs engagement with a rigorous critic.

    The chapter is only two pages long.



    Are you willing to scour my closing statement for flaws with your elliptical exigesis? (I always read all of your links to supporting text.)

    Chapters 01 & 02 are directly below.
  • ucarr
    254
    06-13-22 Chapter 01

    I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

    Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?

    Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.

    If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?

    Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.

    I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...

    Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state; how a 4D object looks in 3D.

    Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).

    The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.

    In 4D space, complex time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions. Simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by complex time. Under this construction, simple time (as in our 3D experience), at a given position, flows along as always even as the non-locality of hyper-space sustains one thing as multiples occupying multiple positions simultaneously. The non-locality of hyper-space renders tessaractic reality as a type of multi-verse.

    Consider two parallel boxes.

    In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.

    In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.

    In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.

    Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.

    In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.

    I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.

    At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.

    I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.

    In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.

    8 days ago


    06-21-22 Chapter 02

    Now an answer to What is a question? can be expressed with the apparent problem of paradox taken into consideration.

    Premise – Question = cognitive motion.

    By working through a sequence of math operations that progressively isolates the unknown in terms of the known, the process of question arrives at an answer that, all along, was embedded within the question.

    I can argue that question & answer are different expressions of one unitary truth. The difference that appears to the reason is an apparent difference in the forms of ideas.

    The query process draws a line of continuity between the different forms of ideas, thus linking the different forms logically. Question is thus an essential tool of information & knowledge. This, in turn, makes query indispensable to philosophy.

    I can say that philosophy is question.

    Premise – Question-of-question = higher order cognitive motion.

    What is a complex question?

    In this context, complex question doesn’t mean a question that entails a complicated, multi-part answer. A first order question can entail such an answer.

    Herein, a complex question is a query that unfolds in 4D as an expansion from the paradox of question-of-question as perceived in 3D.

    In the 3D view of question-of-question, there is a circularity of reasoning that posits two, contradictory claims on equal footing, thus rendering the claim undecidable as a whole.

    Through the lens of question defined as a process that discovers logical continuity between differing forms of an idea, question-of-question seems to fuse together inconsistent claims into a strange & unjustifiable continuity.

    This fugue state of continuity is the telltale marker of a higher dimensional object in its collapsed state as it resides at a dimensional matrix that excludes one of more of the object’s dimensions.

    When the query process terminates in a paradox, the inquisitor should conclude that the object of their search possesses at least one additional dimension beyond the dimensional matrix of the query. The presence of this additional dimension presses against, as it were, the boundary of the dimensional matrix that cannot accommodate expansion of the additional dimension.
    In order to remedy this fugue state of continuity, the inquisitor must expansively unfold the paradox by catapulting it upwards from reality into hyper-reality. In short, this catapult entails an upwardly dimensional expansion from 3D into 4D.

    Forward Speculations – Visualization in 4D

    Henceforth, my narrative tries to throw open the shutters on hyper-reality by means of speculative visualization.

    Hyper-reality – a dimensional matrix that includes four spatial dimensions + time.

    The conception herein, with the possible exceptions of some details, is not new.

    Higher-order cognitive motion, rather than working through a sequence of math operations that progressively (sequentially) isolates the unknown in terms of the known, instead propagates such a cognitive continuity instantaneously.

    Instantaneous propagation of logical continuity is the resultant of unfolding question-of-question in 4D. This description, with its claim of instant continuity, sounds like an oxymoron, but that’s because my description of 4D is herein rendered through a 3D narrative.

    The instantaneity of question-of-question, although infinitely faster, resembles intuition. I can call it super-intuition.

    Premise – hyper-question, or the process of hyper-query = omniscience. This is a state wherein question & answer are always one, never separated in sequential time.

    If we imagine a sentient being whose natural state is 4D, as distinguished from human, whose native state, being 3D, must use abstract reasoning techniques in order to “perceive” 4D, then we understand that such 4D being knows all answers to all questions instantly.

    The trick of this claim is that it presents a seemingly perplexing, all-encompassing continuity wherein question-answer are merged. Moreover, it suggests that a native 4D being always knows all. These are tricks of perplexity caused by the rendering of a native 4D being within my 3D narrative.

    QM opened the door to these seemingly perplexing observations regarding elementary forces & particles. It seems to be the case that investigations into elementary physics opens additional dimensions that, rendered in 3D narratives, present wildly counter-intuitive pictures of reality.

    I can argue that QM is our primer for Boundary Ontology. After all, QM, as the label says, concerns itself with navigation of discrete units of forces & particles i.e. quanta.

    In the next chapter, I will explore some attributes of the multi-self phenomenon.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    Are you willing to scour my closing statement for flaws with your elliptical exigesis?ucarr
    No. (You need an editor.)

    (I always read all of your links to supporting text.)
    Your replies to my post suggest otherwise.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    I'll try, no promises! G'day!
  • ucarr
    254
    I don't use "a bivalent methodology", just a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream'.180 Proof

    Non-oppositional & non-exclusionary are modifiers I apply to the real/unreal polarities at the center of your metaphysical acid test. In claiming the polarities are entangled, I argue that the modifiers mitigate the polarization of the polarities. For this reason, my argument continues, a simple real/unreal switch as acid test for what is categorically real or unreal introduces a volume of imprecision unacceptable for metaphysics, especially as you define metaphysics as the categorical.

    The upshot of my argument says real/unreal are limited & soft polarities, and thus they’re not suitable as acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical, your asserted lynchpin for the metaphysical.

    Note – In the instant you claim categorical, you lay the groundwork for characterization of your position as including (if not prioritizing) bivalence.

    If, on the other hand, it is your wish to acknowledge existence of degrees of reality, as distinguished from the simple, bi-valent switch of real/unreal, then your apophaticism, now shaking hands with catophaticism, expands beyond categorical classification to include the grayscale of the not strictly physical-cum-not strictly real milieu of Meinong.

    Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others?ucarr

    Not in a genuine dialogue where understanding mutually different positions is the goal.180 Proof

    When you attack me, implying my character is self-enclosed & egotistical, you seem to be misreading yourself. “…mutually different positions…” as I understand it, means two different positions conjoined in dialogue. If this is correct, then, as you say, the work involves carefully distilling all important details on both sides of the argument. Therefore, when I say,

    Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here.ucarr

    it should be clear I’m describing a meeting of the minds of two parties. Well, that means evaluating your terms in terms of my own terms. I don’t suppose you think I would evaluate your terms in terms of your terms. Not being you, how could I do that?

    As individuals, we always bring our own terms into confrontation with the terms of others. Being selves ourselves, how can we do otherwise?


    The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

    Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics. If you're not going to read what I write for comprehension, ucarr, that's quite all right but let me know so I won't waste any more time answering your questions.
    180 Proof

    How can you suppose I haven’t read your link when the heart & soul of my counter-narrative to your metaphysical acid test attacks (whether rightly or wrongly) the simplistic bivalence of categorical real/unreal? From the start I’ve been arguing their mitigating entanglement.

    If your categorical acid test runs parallel to the polar entanglement of real/unreal (as opposed to running through it, which is what I think), then point it out to me as I’ve missed it.

    Now consideration of what’s really important.

    If you want to break off dialoguing with me (I don’t want to break off dialoguing with you) on moral grounds of bad character mine, that’s an emotional value that scuttles the power of the above verbiage. In that event, I will, of course, respect your privacy and leave off from further attempts to communicate with you. However, before you ring down the metal bars locking us into prison cells of alienation, I want you to cheat a little bit and answer my question,

    Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?

    Getting this question answered is one of the main goals of my conversation.

    If we must conclude our interesting & informative (and now testy) interactions, then why not bookmark things with a categorical closure?
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    ... real/unreal polarities ...

    ... metaphysical acid test ...

    ... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ...
    ucarr
    You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn:
  • ucarr
    254
    You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn:180 Proof

    Be that as it may, I hope you see my intention is to dialogue with you, not ignore you.

    If I fail utterly to understand your positions, that's a good reason for you to ignore me, however, as yet, you haven't, so for now I turn my attention to the centrality of query WRT logic & philosophy.

    So far, in this thread, I've gotten Agent Smith's deflection (via paradox) and your silence.

    I know query is an essential information systems operator that links all of what we can know.

    I believe, with increasing confidence, all data forms are linked primevally, and query, like messenger RNA, manipulates data templates across platforms in a process that isolates a datum from data like a droplet from the ocean.

    These observations sound like conventional wisdom until I declare "question links sentience to matter directly and therefore cognition, no less than matter, holds possession of an axiomatic status; as the blueness of blue, so the contemplation of thought."

    Premise - axiomatic = metaphysical ∼ every dimensional matrix has an arbitrary start point, and that's metaphysics beyond the categorical, unless someone can cite a dimensional matrix without a start point, but then, such a matrix, being eternal, must needs be axiomatic, and that circles us back around to metaphysical.
  • ucarr
    254
    ... real/unreal polarities ...

    ... metaphysical acid test ...

    ... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ...
    ucarr

    You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn:180 Proof

    You say I’m monologuing with myself, thus implying my oblivion WRT key statements articulated by you. Let’s examine your claim by going down the above list.

    ... real/unreal polarities ...ucarr

    I asked for your take on metaphysics,


    Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?[/quote]


    and you obliged me by responding thus,
    ucarr
    Aristotle's students / archivists coined the term "tà metà tà physikà biblía" which he never used (in his works). I do agree with his conception of philosophia prima – the categorical principles necessary for rationally interpreting the whole of nature. I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals) because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory. For instance (a sketch with a link to more ... links ... sketches):180 Proof

    Can you explain, logically, how your above bolded statement (concerned with categoricals) does NOT posit real/unreal as polar opposites?

    ... metaphysical acid test ...ucarr

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584132

    The above link, which you gave to me, connected me to a discussion thread wherein I found the following statement by 180 Proof,

    In my opinion, metaphysics is obsolete ...
    — Enrique
    Cataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete but not apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. It's my preferred approach for acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc. Scientism, however, doesn't seem a viable, or coherent, alternative to speculatively creating 'new' concepts (metaphor-paradigms) adequate to our theoretical problems or interpreting their theoretical solutions accordingly. In other words, a nail (re: science) can't hammer itself.
    180 Proof

    When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you.

    ... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ...ucarr

    As to the question of your characterization of apophaticism being concerned with establishing hard boundaries separating things, you, again, provide the answer.

    The question of all questions is: what is?
    — Xtrix
    In the apophatic tradition I think this ur-question is answered, rather than merely addressed, by reformulating it 'what necessarily is not' e.g. ↪180 Proof.
    180 Proof

    Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary.

    Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.

    I'll be pleasantly surprised if you make specific responses to my arguments above because, of late, you've merely been naysaying my arguments with unsupported declarations.

    At the very least, this exegesis refutes your claim I'm dialoguing with myself. Anyone who can read English can see that my critiques of your positions oftentimes quote you. They might be fallacious, but they're not self-enclosed monologues.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    Can you explain, logically, how your above bolded statement (concerned with categoricals) does NOT posit real/unreal as polar opposites?ucarr
    Can you point out where and how I "posit real/unreal as polar opposite"?

    When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you.
    No you're not. I wrote
    ... acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc.180 Proof
    Btw, what the hell is "cataphaticism"? :sweat:

    Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary.
    A distinction (i.e. alternative) is not a "hard boundary". :roll:

    Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.
    Again, ucarr, this has nothing to do with anything I've written. Re: .
  • ucarr
    254
    Can you point out where and how I "posit real/unreal as polar opposite"?180 Proof

    Let me repeat what I just posted.

    ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals)180 Proof

    If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.

    un-1 | ən |
    prefix
    1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
    the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly.

    When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you.ucarr

    No you're not. I wrote
    ... acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc.
    180 Proof

    apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. It's my preferred approach for acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models180 Proof

    The referent for your pronoun "It's" is apophatic metaphysics ∼ apophatic metaphysics does acid testing of (self-contradictory) concepts or models...

    Btw, what the hell is "cataphaticism"? :sweat:180 Proof

    As Hinduistic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Hinduisticism (a Hinduistic system of exegesis)

    So Cataphatic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Cataphaticism (a Cataphatic system of exegesis)

    Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary.ucarr
    A distinction (i.e. alternative) is not a "hard boundary". :roll:180 Proof

    You're talking about the comparison of cataphatic/apophatic, whereas I'm talking about the comparison of real/unreal. Since I'm examining what cataphatic exegesis does, it's proper for me to make claims like "Cataphatic exegesis seeks to establish a hard (categorical) boundary between real/unreal."

    Even so, you say,

    Cataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete180 Proof

    ob·so·lete | ˌäbsəˈlēt |
    adjective
    1 no longer produced or used; out of date: the disposal of old and obsolete machinery | the phrase was obsolete after 1625.

    It's hugely pretentious to claim the comparison of useful/useless can be characterized as alternative.

    Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.
    ucarr
    Again, ucarr, this has nothing to do with anything I've written.180 Proof

    ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals)180 Proof

    If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.

    un-1 | ən |
    prefix
    1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
    the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly.
    ucarr
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.