Sure. I think I used the correct term 'timelessness' to convey eternity.

The reason why I used anxiety or angst there Frank is because of your OP relating to ontology/ Being. And in that sense human beings having a sentient existence, generally experience existential anxiety or angst relative to mortality.

AKA fear of the unknown.

And in that sense human beings having a sentient existence, generally experience existential anxiety or angst relative to mortality. — 3017amen

But isnt thanatos also a response to mortality?

Set up a possible world in which everything is green. There most certainly will be green things in that world; that's the very supposition on which the possible world is built.

Would the folk of that possible world have a use for that word? it seems they could not. A fish does not have a use for the word "wet".

And that's about the end of the analysis, so far as I can see.

[@T Clark]
You seem to be over-thinking it. But I take your point that the folk there might well develop a more extensive vocabulary for green stuff.

The idea here is that what we're aware of, and therefore think in terms of, is contrast and opposition. — frank

Yep; that follows from language being a tool. We only invent words that are useful, because meaning is use.

I think that the people in WG would have a plethora of terms to describe "green". — thewonder

. That's not substantially different to Frank's notion that they would have words for shades.

But we have gone from our RGB world of 3 dimensions of colour to a 1 dimensional 'black and white' one. — unenlightened

Hm. When I burn image with a laser cuter, I must take care to set the dithering correctly.

The totally green world is a contradiction. — frank

There's no contradiction in "in a world that is all-green, the word green has no use".

theyd have a word for green but it would mean what we mean by 'color' — csalisbury

:grin:

That works.

Good reply.

Just noticed that this is a zombie thread.

I was going to go on a big rant about how green still had a use in an all green world, but wasn't sure I since its been dead for months.

I'll just say this: if green is useless in an all green would, to what are we referring to with our statements of "All green world?" There is some private langauge nonesense going on here.

Set up a possible world in which everything is green. There most certainly will be green things in that world; that's the very supposition on which the possible world is built.

Would the folk of that possible world have a use for that word? it seems they could not. A fish does not have a use for the word "wet".

And that's about the end of the analysis, so far as I can see. — Banno

Well, a couple of people saw what I was pointing out, which was awesome. I had more, but as you noticed, the thread died.

if you green is useless in an all green would, to what are we referring to with our statements of "All green world?" — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ha! Yep, that's the confusion.

I think the answer is in possible world semantics - an ugly term for a good grammar. The word green is used in setting up the possible world; but that doesn't mean that the word green has a use in that possible world.

Despite that, green still refers to green things; and will do so in any and every possible world.

And that does not rule out the possible world in which green (that word) is not used to talk about green things.

SO now I am not sure if you missed something, or I missed something...

now I am not sure if you missed something, or I missed something... — Banno

You actually think it's possible that you missed something? :joke:

All the time. Just not as much as others hereabouts.

It's probably a duck and a rabbit.

I think frank missed more though. Or at least something important in the context of the discussion.

I get the point frank was going for too. The pheneonma of an all green world is something utterly alien to those who live in a world of distinctions. Can you imagine a world on which everything is green?

I mean it could be our world: let's say there was a being who encountered objects of our world but only ever saw the colour green. Such a being would never get our distintion of green from emprical observation. With green being constant, it's questionable whether they would even register it as distinct. They might be more inclined to think of it like we do "existence" or "world."

But such limits aren't really limits. One can always imagine much more than is ever in front of them. Just as we can imagine a world which is all green, they might imagine one which has more than green. Distinction isn't closed to them because they just see green. With the right imagination, they might speak of anything. They might even make the move of denying their own world is green.

Such a being would never get our distintion of green from emprical observation. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not so sure. It could develop a theory of the electromagnetic spectrum, and recognise that we see a wider band of colour that it does.

Just as we c an speak of infra-red and ultraviolet...

It seems to me that there is a limit on the language that the folk in GreenLand can use; but that's not a limit on our language, and far from a limit on language in general.

It could, my point was it would have to be entirely imagined. They wouldn't have the distinction of colours or non-colours we do in our emprical observation. Since everything is green to them, the whole EM spectrum would appear as the colour green.

isnt thanatos also a response to mortality?
2h — frank

Yes of course I believe so...

Since everything is green to them, the whole EM spectrum would appear as the colour green. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Hm. I guess it would.

isnt thanatos also a response to mortality?
2h
— frank

Yes of course I believe so... — 3017amen

So its not just with angst that we face mortality?

Lately I've been filled with angst-less purposelessness. Just being.

So its not just with angst that we face mortality? — frank

With fear. Most humans have intrinsic fears. Many legitimate and some illusionary. Some of those that are illusionary can come from systemic means and methods.

While others face mortality with a heightened sense of wonderment. Of course we know from cognitive science NDE patient's lose the so-called intrinsic fears about mortality. Ironically enough perhaps they got a little glimpse of your WG world haha.

As far as angst -less purposelessness, perhaps that's a state of homeostasis for you.

An important point comes out of comparing Plato and Kant. Who is more a Rationalist

Kant had the innate powers of Time and Space. Plato had the infinity of innate Ideas. Kant thought the noumena unknownable. Plato rejected the noumena. His noumena, unlike Kants, was of another world

Personally I don't dichotomize, I think both philosopher's had their virtues. I try to take the good from all of philosophy were possible. Easier said than done of course LOL.

In my opinion I think Plato was more of a rationalist. His reasoning seemed to be more a priori than not. And not that that's a bad thing; it's just that any one thing can be overdone.

Just like there's a so-called art to living, in Philosophy perhaps there's an art to philosophizing. Maybe it's all about the context.

Descartes thought we had an innate knowledge of God. This is either because of his birth or his dad. Do we get the sense that the world and our ideas come from God through the fact we come out of someone, or is it because of the father???

Personally I don't dichotomize, — 3017amen

I think you have to do a certain amount of dichotomizing. That's how the intellect works.

I honestly believe it's Kantian intuition, which was part of his metaphysical theory; using your word, an ' innate' sense of being.

An innate sense of wonderment that we have. Thus, once again, the Kantian metaphysical judgement: all events must have a cause. Yay for the synthetic a priori !!!

Sure you don't want to dichotomize the dichotomizing, ha.

Sure you don't want to dichotomize the dichotomizing, ha. — 3017amen

Sure. I just don't have anyyhing to say about the world where everything runs together.

Sure. I just don't have anyyhing to say about the world where everything runs together.
3h — frank

I would submit that's precisely another example of unresolved paradox in the world.

Take consciousness for example. Driving your car while daydreaming; both your consciousness and subconsciousness is working together. It breaks the laws of excluded middle.

And so in an ironic way you're right. What can we actually say about that? How do we explain or describe it?

Maybe in WG it can be explained.

You have to slice the pie in order to conceive of an unsliced pie.

That was your profundus for the day.

In the spirit of PoeticUniverse:

Profundity and pie
That caught my eye
Though surely sweet
Your trick or treat(ha)

Volition is Man
Discoveries are great
What you are not
You can't understand