And that is not a good ontology. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can only say that understanding Peirce's intention takes a lot of time in research and study. There's clearly nothing I can say to you to instill that understanding.

This will be my final description of the differences between nominalism, Platonism, and Peirce in this thread. There is clearly no reason for me to keep repeating myself here.

For Peirce, abstraction is dynamic, relational, and grounded in semiosis (the process of sign-making and interpretation). Universals and abstractions are not arbitrary (as in nominalism) or static and disconnected (as in Platonism). Instead, they are real but only in the sense that they emerge through relational continuity and are embedded in a triadic process.

Peirce's approach stands out by addressing the limitations of nominalism (over-reliance on discrete categorization) and Platonism (over-reification of abstractions). He emphasizes the relational, processual, and evolutionary nature of abstraction, making it more aligned with the complexities of the real world.

For Peirce, abstraction is dynamic, relational, and grounded in semiosis (the process of sign-making and interpretation). — Mapping the Medium

That sounds like nominalism to me. But I think it misses the point which separates Peirce from nominalism, making him closer to Platonist. For Peirce, the universal is an "object" and this name is supported by the assumption of "sameness", what you called "functional continuity across interpretations".

This assumed "continuity" of sameness, despite differences, is what allows the universal to be known as one object instead of many distinct conceptions in many distinct minds. This is analogous to the observed temporal continuity of the physical object which enables our assumption of "same", despite differences of change over time, instead of assuming a new object at each passing moment.

Notice that the title "object" is supported by an assumed continuity of existence, in both cases. The continuity of the physical object being supported by the assumed temporal continuity between distinct moments of existence, and the continuity of the universal being supported by the assumed coninuity produced from the use of signs.

The problem being that Peirce's semiosis, and proposed triadic structure cannot support this assumed continuity required for his determination of "sameness", and "object". By placing the object outside the relationship between interpretant and representamen, as your diagram neatly shows, as something distinct, (independent with its own continuity),having its own distinct relation between each of the other two, Peirce provides a misleading model. A true analysis of the relationship between the interpretation and the sign would reveal that the sign actually breaks any supposed continuity of the universal, between one interpretation and another.

So to make a true representation, which would support the supposed continuity of "the object", the category of "object" would have to include both interpretant and representamen as united in continuity, within "the object". This is what is commonly known as the transcendence of Platonic objects. The existence of the universal, as am object, transcends the existence of its composite parts, the sign and the interpretation of the sign. That the object transcends both, and is therefore of a distinct class produced by a unity of the other two, is a necessary condition for the the continuity of the object.

What Peirce does with the triadic semiotic structure, is remove the transcendence which supports the continuity of "the object", yet he still claims an object with continuity. This allows that the continuity of "the object" may be understood as a property of the interpretant, or it may be understood as a property of the representamen, in his proposal of ambiguity. So all we have is a nominalist sign-mind representation, with an assumed continuous "object" which may be assigned to the sign, or it may be assigned to the mind, depending on one's theoretical purpose.

This is why it is useful to refer to those who apply Peirce's triadic structure, to demonstrate the inconsistency in application, produced by that ambiguity. In "objective" science such as biosemiotics, it is evident that "the object " is a property of the representamen, yet in social applications of semiotics, it is clear that "the object" is understood as property of the interpretation. A true representation of a united interpretant/representamen, to support a continuous object, is not required, because "the object" may simply be assigned to one side or the other.

This is because Peirce takes a nominalist sign-mind model, and adds "an object" without any rigid principles of sameness or continuity. This allows those who apply the model to assign "object" where there is no support for an object. The defense of that assignment is that it is a "Platonic object", but Peirce has denied the ontological support for Platonic objects.

Peirce's approach stands out by addressing the limitations of nominalism (over-reliance on discrete categorization) and Platonism (over-reification of abstractions). — Mapping the Medium

This is exactly why Peirce' project fails. Asserting compatibility between incompatible ontologies is not a solution. Taking a nominalist structure of "discrete categorization", and imposing an assumption of continuity, without justification, just to make it more "Platonic", is not a solution to the discrete/continuous dilemma.

Asserting compatibility between incompatible ontologies — Metaphysician Undercover

...

Taking a nominalist structure of "discrete categorization", and imposing an assumption of continuity, without justification, just to make it more "Platonic", is not a solution to the discrete/continuous dilemma. — Metaphysician Undercover

Peirce absolutely does NOT do what you are asserting here.

I am exploring this issue in my thread on Hypostatic Abstraction, Precisive Abstraction, Proper vs Improper Negation

numbers don't exist. — Art48

I agree with you. They exist. But they are ultimately make-believe. Functional tools we have constructed, projected into the natural world as such, and because they are Functional, collectively believe.

In that sense, as 'opposed' to the real and natural world against which we project them, they are ontologically not real. So they exist, but only for humans, and only in that fictional layer which we have imposed upon reality, hiding it only from ourselves. When humans are nowhere to be found, so too will numbers be.*

*assuming that no other organism evolves to adopt them, and that even our AI etc are gone.

Good stuff, the quotes below are of my particular interest and I quoted them as I read the thread...Sitting now looking at them, I am fascinated in this thinking. The thinking thoughts are now typed words that are giving me ideas [right now even holding me accountable to them]....

As you touch on some real interesting points. See parts that I have underlined/bolded from your comments for the specifics that caught my attention:

When thebelief 'satisfies our desire', as the means to the end, then we are not inspired to doubt the means because the result, end, is insured as that satisfaction. So long as the desire itself, the end, is never doubted, and the means are observed to be successful, then doubt is only relative to the efficiency of the means. Now means are empirically justifiable, as we demonstrate that action A produces the desired end Z. Then various ways of producing Z can be compared, A, B, C, analyzed, and the resulting "settlement", which method best produces Z, can obtain to a level higher than mere opinion.

However, such justified settlementsrely on taking the end for granted.**** It is only relative to the assumption that the end Z is what is truly desired, that the means are in this way justified. Doubting the end itself puts us squarely into the field of opinion, unless the end itself can be justified as the means to a further end. In traditional moral philosophy there is a distinction made between the real good, and the apparent good. The apparent good is nothing but personal opinion, but the real good is assumed to somehow transcend personal opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Personal opinions are both bad and good, though no? Bias is opinion based, some outspoken far from the silence of their own wonderings within the mind...when bias or opinion based beliefs, reasons, or claims is used as an excuse to not continue towards finding that real good...lack of acceptance or awareness or willingness to see self and others. See the self in others. When our personal opinions are preventing US (together) from reaching higher levels or desires (which are, personal) then the real problem is in the excuse to NOT act towards higher levels because for some it is not easy tolerating others opinions and these tolerances are at different limits. They are valid, even when reasonable doubt arises. We doubt our selves and others, but how do you know I never doubted from the start? Does that chance exist to prove some one or our selves wrong? Right? Transcending personal opinion requires lessons to be learned, a settlement is justified in itself at that decision making moment. Maybe they never knew what they truly desired and are scared that they already foresee the truth, and it's not good.

Wooo! :sweat: That was a lot, I wont be offended if we skip all that but note I did touch on similar ideas before, see thread, "Why be moral?" from Michael in 2015**, I commented *over a year ago:

"Can you have or hold morals that may not ever be seen in action? perhaps morals are justification itself.
what if, intentions are a/the gateway to potentially lead to one participating in questionable behavior and ,by justifying ONLY planned actions as they play the role as "the excuse to act". despite the outcome that was bound to occur...no matter what, for better or worse.
***an excuse to act = tricking the brain into planning a justified NOT BELIEF, but idea with reason TO MAKE BELIEF through others perceptions without the true action explained aloud, despite the facts of matter being known or knowable, only interally between self and mind, know the true reason/s for hiding a "truth" thanks to privacy within us and our wants needs goals desires that we allow permit tolerate accept and all its opposites and vice versas equally considered and accounted for....the space for thought is and is found when and in using the brain silently within the minds limits, which the self can control as boundaries contrstraints etc for what it really is thats happening..e.g. daydreaming, multitasking, texting and in a meeting on zoom, other examples exist

*reason=goal or desire? i think they exists with and without a belief system but im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. Morals are justification itself.

you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed .[ex. my intention was/is to have fun tonight-8.20.23 522pm]] AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what reality played out was very different

Intentions show that the individual has thought.
What happens when you bypass your intentions? COULD INTENSIONS COULD BE THE BRAIN TRICKING ITS SELF OR BODY? WHETHER WE ACT ON THEM OR NOT..PLANNED OR RANDOM, COMPLETE ATTEMPT AND FAIL, OR SUCCESS OF WHAT FROM ACTION IS JUSTIFIED? IS IT STILL WITHOUT ACTION? " — Kizzy

I also underlined parts from the following contributions you made that talk about justification in itself:

" And it is clear that nothing out of the sphere of our knowledge can be our object, for nothing which does not affect the mind can be the motive for mental effort."

This statement inverts the real, or true, relation between the being with knowledge and the object of that being, which is its goal or end. Knowledge, as justified opinion, explained above, is always justified as the means to the end. But the end which justifies the knowledge is simply assumed as an opinion, and this places "our object", which is the goal that motivates us, as outside of knowledge itself, as unjustified opinion. This is what Plato demonstrated in "The Republic", "the good" must be apprehended as outside of knowledge,"

PAUSE [[[[ Can "our object" be like an excuse to act and justification in itself might be settled upon when verified for credibility. Our "goals" might be not realistic or never close to being reached, but they can be justifications for some (wrongly) to act on this mirage they have yet to see themselves in...what makes a bad ending from a "good" movie? Potential? Expectations? When something starts good and ends badly, where is that line? From G to B? When is the moment? Is the point of no return foreseeable? It ought to be. I know it is. But trust in the mystery of the Universe and a little faith go a long way. To be understood by another as a lesson learned in time, perhaps? ]]]]

(quote continues), So the statement incorrectly asserts that the motivating object, the end, or the good, cannot be outside "the sphere of our knowledge". A proper analysis indicates that only the means to the end can be justified as knowledge, while the object itself, the end or good, must be apprehended as outside the sphere of knowledge. Therefore moral traditionalists characterize the apparent good as opinion, and the real good as understood only by God. This places "our object" as firmly outside "the sphere of our knowledge". — Metaphysician Undercover

Can we break this down more? I am confused at the way you put into text the inverse statement and how it was incorrectly asserted that the motivating "object" cannot be outside the sphere of knowledge. Are you saying the justification ITSELF is justified knowledge Understood by GOD, how does one understand such things? Seeing? Learning? Observing? Living? Watching? I think it's more of a KNOWING. A knowing and a faith that goes beyond questioning, doubts, and opinions. Beyond good or bad, into.....the light!

Or, maybe "force/s" in that context means 'cause of motion' ? — Kizzy


What could be the cause of motion other than the passing of time? Time passing is what causes things to move. Is "force" the passing of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Seeing time pass may cause another thing to move a different way.....can one be forced out of the present moment? Can one be or USE force/d to stay in it?


Yes sure...that is one force. I think many forces happen in and with TIME. The "force" I write of here and agree with you it is from the passing of time, but not just a force alone plays a role in the space held as the passing of time is actively happening. THE awareness of Two things at once? It is perhaps a/the result of what is behind the events or experiences that are had/to be...Interested in entertaining retrocausal ideas, kind of...Time works in motion and it is OF it, a deeper look of my thinking below:

"5/9/23 1212pm

Of what.....is the "drive" mentioned above? [[ "a drive is needed and with it,...."]]]

Of human interest perhaps? How much does "interest" drive humans

Force OF motion vs Force IN motion = is just time in daily activities, as time goes on in a day, how are you linked to the time, how is time used/seen/acknowledged/important to humans actions TODAY...not any day, not on a Tuesday, TODAY...plans, relations, work, health (body and mind), money, circumstances, environment, what is expected vs what is possible vs what does human want to do and why.....

-F of M = Time available to act in the day, before tomorrow begins, and is no longer yesterday...Time forcing the measuring of movements, planning around time....not the actions being forced to motion, the action is ... a person planning BECAUSE OF TIME AVAILABLE TODAY....
Plans are of motion, a force [[ see Intend ]]
Acting on the plans, a force [[see Intent ]]
Timing, a point where a force occurs
Time, not a force alone but only when measured by Humans

-F in M = The actual actions a human takes on within the span of available time in a day and how well they are living and the current status of living situation is immersed in the appropriate environment...are you where you should be?? Time spent acting on the plans, whether timing is on track or not (not constrained by time, in the moment instead of on the clock

"a drive" = of interests of human-intention

drive+forceIN(M)+forceOF(M)=

forceIN(M)+forceOF(M)+human+nature=f......?

(human intention) + (a drive) + (Force of M) = "an excuse to act"

"an excuse to act" + forceIN(M) = accidents occur that are unnecessary
be IN motion and also OF motion?"

-from my notes, highly flawed and updated since...but relevant to showcase my stance perhaps not more clear, but evidently....


I suppose I do agree with answering the question, yes... but I think there is more to just this specific "force", being the cause of movement because of the passing of time...but our lives revolve around the clock, why? Is that force more powerful than our will to stop following time as we know it? We lose track of time...we pay consequences. What does my/your/our life revolve around besides the clock? We don't all flow with it, but we are all in it together...until we're not. Gone but not forgotten? Until we are....gone and forgotten. Then we wait, til the time comes and they remember us, again! Pure chance? Time/time avail. for that chance to occur? The spot, spotted! At last.


This might be a good place[time?] for me to jump from this thread to THAT thread :point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15544/what-does-consciousness-do/latest/comment

I have been following the back and forth with MU, it seems relevant to mention that from reading the other thread discussion currently being had encouraged me to respond HERE now. Although, I think the excerpt blurb I shared about forces, time in and of motion may align with the whereabouts of that discussion, as I can further explain when I arrive over there. For now, may it be lost in a final cause already....leaves it only to be found!

In the model I described, the present does not become the future, nor does the present become the past. The present is outside of time, and time consists of future and past. The future becomes the past, as time passes, and the present is a perspective from which this is observed. Also final cause acts from this perspective, as a cause from outside of time, which intervenes in the events which are occurring as time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover

- 11 days ago, pg 3 of 3, "What Does Consciousness Do?"

↪ucarr This might be a good place[time?] for me to jump from this thread to THAT thread :point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15544/what-does-consciousness-do/latest/comment

If you're still interested in joining our discussion, then let me say, "Welcome, aboard!"

Good stuff, the quotes below are of my particular interest and I quoted them as I read the thread...Sitting now looking at them, I am fascinated in this thinking. The thinking thoughts are now typed words that are giving me ideas [right now even holding me accountable to them].... — Kizzy

You've given me a lot to look at Kizzy, and some of this I don't quite understand. So I'm going to address firstly, the distinction you mentioned between desire and intention, to hopefully lay some ground work for a base of understanding between us.

*reason=goal or desire? i think they exists with and without a belief system but im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. Morals are justification itself.

you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed .[ex. my intention was/is to have fun tonight-8.20.23 522pm]] AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what reality played out was very different

Intentions show that the individual has thought.
What happens when you bypass your intentions? COULD INTENSIONS COULD BE THE BRAIN TRICKING ITS SELF OR BODY? WHETHER WE ACT ON THEM OR NOT..PLANNED OR RANDOM, COMPLETE ATTEMPT AND FAIL, OR SUCCESS OF WHAT FROM ACTION IS JUSTIFIED? IS IT STILL WITHOUT ACTION? " — Kizzy

I think, generally speaking, we use "intention" to refer to actions motivated by a conscious goal, and we use "desire" to refer to feelings which motivate actions. This is the most common form of "intention" as used in philosophy of mind, and social sciences, which frame intention as a property of human consciousness and reason. In this case, strict adherence to definitions implies that an intentional act would require thought out reasons, and a conscious goal. This puts "the object" of intention, the goal, into the domain of knowledge, what the person knows (though it is essentially subjective knowledge). On the other hand, since a desire derives directly through emotions and feelings, it can incline, and produce an activity, where "the object" of the act, the goal is completely unknown This is the case when we are "overcome by passion". The act is based in emotion, hate, anger, lust, etc., and the object, or goal of that act may not be adequately known. In other words, the act is produced without consciously considering what the end will be.

However, this separation leaves a large grey area where the two relate to each other. In law for example, a person cannot excuse oneself from the rule of law by saying I was overcome by passion, I had no particular goal in mind when I did that, therefore it was not an intentional act, and I am not responsible. So moral philosophy relies on a much broader definition of "intention", from the one proposed by some philosophers of mind, who want to tie "intention" strictly to the conscious mind.

This definition ties intention to "purpose". The key difference here, is that when we say that a person, or even a thing, acts with a purpose, it is not necessary that the purpose is known to the the acter. So when we say that the various parts of a machine have a function, we mean that they have a purpose, and intention is implied. The "intention" is associated with the creator of the machine. This broader definition of "intention" effectively rids us of the grey area between "intention" and "desire", by bringing acts which are motivated by emotions and desires, where the goal is not adequately understood by the acter, into the category of "intentional".

Broadening the definition of "intention" in this way, has its own problems though. By placing the object, or goal of intention, as not necessarily grasped by the mind of the agent which is acting intentionally, we allow that all sorts of purposeful acts are intentional. Therefore we see all sorts of intention throughout the acts of creatures in the biological world. And we see intention in the parts of living beings; the heart, the lungs, etc., demonstrate purpose, and therefore intention is behind the actions of these parts. This is a problem, because knowing the object, the goal, is what makes intention intelligible to us, because the intentional act can be justified as the means to the end, in the way I described. But when the act demonstrates purpose yet the object or goal is unknown, then we just speculate as to the goal, and even question whether there is truly intention there. Furthermore, the possibility of an intentional act without an object or goal, must be allowed for, and this is completely foreign to the thinkings of the conscious mind, which requires justification for any proposed intentional act, as means to some end.

The result is, that when we allow that we may be inclined, motivated, and actually carry out acts, without an understanding of the relationship between the act and an end, as in the case of emotional acts, being overcome by passion, etc., we allow that intentional acts may be carried out without an object or goal, whatsoever. This ought to shake our confidence in all that we think we know about "intention", because the way that we've always understood "intention" is as actions directed toward goals. Now there is a need to remove the requirement of a goal, and understand intentional acts as purposeful acts without a goal. So in relation to traditional understanding of intention, this makes "intention" completely unintelligible because we need to understand an intentional act as an act without an object or goal, rather than as an act with a goal, and the goal is what makes the act intelligible.

Personal opinions are both bad and good, though no? Bias is opinion based, some outspoken far from the silence of their own wonderings within the mind...when bias or opinion based beliefs, reasons, or claims is used as an excuse to not continue towards finding that real good...lack of acceptance or awareness or willingness to see self and others. See the self in others. When our personal opinions are preventing US (together) from reaching higher levels or desires (which are, personal) then the real problem is in the excuse to NOT act towards higher levels because for some it is not easy tolerating others opinions and these tolerances are at different limits. They are valid, even when reasonable doubt arises. We doubt our selves and others, but how do you know I never doubted from the start? Does that chance exist to prove some one or our selves wrong? Right? Transcending personal opinion requires lessons to be learned, a settlement is justified in itself at that decision making moment. Maybe they never knew what they truly desired and are scared that they already foresee the truth, and it's not good. — Kizzy

I would say that we need to recognize, and adhere to the principle that "bad" and "good" are judgements. So when we talk about "the real good", and whether or not there is such a thing as "the real good", this is a judgement too. And if we maintain the principle outlined above, that intentional acts may be carried out without an object, or goal, i.e. without a good, then we have a very real problem with the assumption of "real good". This makes all your discussion of "higher levels" grounded only in the supposed good of "US (together)", but what makes "US (together)" a good itself? See, intentional acts are inherently acts which are carried out without a goal (like trial and error maybe), and from these acts goals are created. But what criteria is used to judge a goal as a good goal rather than a bad goal?

Can we break this down more? I am confused at the way you put into text the inverse statement and how it was incorrectly asserted that the motivating "object" cannot be outside the sphere of knowledge. Are you saying the justification ITSELF is justified knowledge Understood by GOD, how does one understand such things? Seeing? Learning? Observing? Living? Watching? I think it's more of a KNOWING. A knowing and a faith that goes beyond questioning, doubts, and opinions. Beyond good or bad, into.....the light! — Kizzy

I was responding to the quote from Peirce, where it was claimed that "the object" must be within the realm of knowledge. I think it's obvious from the evidence we have, of real intentional acts, that the object, or goal of the intentional act may not be known at all. In fact, from my exposé above, it may be the case that the true essence of an intentional act is an act without a goal, where understanding of "the goal" is developed after the act.

The point is that justification for the act is produced from an understanding of the relationship between the act and the end (as means to end). The end is completely opinion based, as explained. This means that if the act itself is liked, enjoyed, or in any way preferred by the person, whatever is produced from that act, will be claimed to be the intentional end, because this justifies the preferred act. For example, "the act produces happiness". In that way the means becomes what is desired, and the end becomes completely irrelevant, just manipulated words to support the desire for the action. This is why we need to look at the end from the other direction, not as the known object which inspires the act, and justifies the act, but as the unknown object which the act will produce. This forces the need to judge the object, end, goal, itself, rather than simply judging the means in relation to the end. The end, being opinion, is simply manipulated to support enjoyment of the activity, the means. Essentially, this is habit. The activity is what is enjoyed, and whatever is produce from that activity is rationalized as the desired end.

I have been following the back and forth with MU, it seems relevant to mention that from reading the other thread discussion currently being had encouraged me to respond HERE now. — Kizzy

I'm going to stop here, and keep the discussion of time to the other thread, which is more suited to that with the question of what does consciousness do, as a temporal question of activity. This thread asks about ideas, which are more like static things, involving objects, goals, while the other thread is about activities. Of course there is a lot of overlap, but I think it's best to make some sort of division. Maybe you can copy some of the questions from here over to there, if you want me to address them.

I think, generally speaking, we use "intention" to refer to actions motivated by a conscious goal, and we use "desire" to refer to feelings which motivate actions. This is the most common form of "intention" as used in philosophy of mind, and social sciences, which frame intention as a property of human consciousness and reason. In this case, strict adherence to definitions implies that an intentional act would require thought out reasons, and a conscious goal. This puts "the object" of intention, the goal, into the domain of knowledge, what the person knows (though it is essentially subjective knowledge). On the other hand, since a desire derives directly through emotions and feelings, it can incline, and produce an activity, where "the object" of the act, the goal is completely unknown This is the case when we are "overcome by passion". The act is based in emotion, hate, anger, lust, etc., and the object, or goal of that act may not be adequately known. In other words, the act is produced without consciously considering what the end will be. — Metaphysician Undercover

So in relation to traditional understanding of intention, this makes "intention" completely unintelligible because we need to understand an intentional act as an act without an object or goal, rather than as an act with a goal, and the goal is what makes the act intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I am with this.

You said, "The point is that justification for the act is produced from an understanding of the relationship between the act and the end (as means to end)." I agree, but is that understanding from the individual or another? That understanding is of interest because it can be two sided....what does it take to do that? To understand? For self to? For all to?

I am thinking about now, again: what if the goal is to justify? For instance, we can behave or act accordingly using a self-set belief with reason (or not, see religion) to not motivate but JUSTIFY the intentions/actions of them (of passion, what if a person wants to appear more passionate then they really are?) Can we FAKE our beliefs or only justify the reasons we have them and why we do the things we do. We don't believe it ourselves, sometimes. We can not hold up the act forever, unless it was held and forgotten. Voided?

We dont believe ourselves, that is uncertainty. We need to accept the unknown with trust, I said that before. BUT at other times, it happens and is knowing you are right where you are supposed to be in that moment of time, conscious reassuring to self. A feeling becomes a knowing of surety when it is felt within us...we KNOW and no one can know THIS feeling like we do...some will swear they KNOW what you mean. How can they? Do you have to believe them? When would you? When it's nothing but love. Those intentions that are masked while the truth of the matter is that the desire is going to (drive or lead?) us towards the goal no matter what...only one outcome exists for every moment that passes...too quick to ever fully get a hold, however a quick glimpse of that is all we really only NEED. It's in the life lead of a conscious being in harmony with their nature...and in nature?

Their character, emotions, and behavior. If we are observing human nature at large can it be said that intention is linked to moral standards? Goal might just be unintelligible to them because they are actively too deep "in it" and may not be able to get a view for what it truly was meant to do. What if the goal was met all along without them realizing? Gone too soon? What if people have a "goal" so they think but it actually was another one?

What if intention can be justified as the morality in the acts itself, could the desire and therefore the goal be knowable or NOW known? To self or others? In what order....time of overlap, time until that happens? The chance, perhaps...Do we get robbed of time or did the chance even exist?

Here I go with time talk again, lol! Stopping myself...I will get to the other thread to carry on with that....

BUT I want to continue, with what we now know about the goal. What goal is linked towards the "belief" or intentions, being motivated actions other than one you came up with in the moment? How long one "thinks" about it, is knowable, not exactly but to a point where we can verify or judge fairly....

So, where I think, the intentions can be changed in any moment, it is the desire that is the realest thing towards knowing any truth of any reasonable matter because it is that which is the drive behind the light from the darkness and back into the dark...Watching from a far, th surfacing and then diving to the depths, IT comes out to lurk just when it thinks/believes NO one is watching....BOOM, spotted. Did they see you see it? That may matter...that brings a choice to them now, to deny or account for them being seen. Its a risk they were HOW willing to take? Risky business! To do: Acknowledge or try to run away?Should we acknowledge but then lie? Hm..so many options. Only so many, so little time. Or is there more? Either way, we GET to make the choice (when it comes) and it is important how we reflect and move on from them. Always moving....

Those choices decided upon (how fast matters...do we make them quickly or do we have time to spend thinking or planning, did we or did we not use our time wisely? Was time limiting or constraining us to make this choice in a sudden event, our reaction time or instinct is not a choice necessarily, I think choices requiring thinking consciously. So that makes sense why you said in the first paragraph of your last reply, that conscious goals motivate actions we call intentions.

But what if consciousness updates our being with a goal through the intentions that change in decision making moments, because of whatever reason? What if being conscious of the goal, or what we think is the goal changes the DIRECTION not the desire but how we move in life to get through the next day? I think its important before we or anyone implies their judgement that it's necessary to verify the credibility of the people judging and the objective nature of what comes from a judgement. A group or person may be wrong in their judgement without a standard way of verification that the judgement is necessary in the first place..

When you are correct in the way your judgement was stated, and it is verified that you were right on what was called upon to be judged, meaning, it is what you claimed it was, then as a source with power to convince others of what the truth is, a source shows interest and by serving your word as the proof, a/the judge needs to clearly show how much thought went into what became the better judgement and sometimes an explanation is NOT needed, can that be justification in itself? r)

This is why we need to look at the end from the other direction, not as the known object which inspires the act, and justifies the act, but as the unknown object which the act will produce. This forces the need to judge the object, end, goal, itself, rather than simply judging the means in relation to the end. The end, being opinion, is simply manipulated to support enjoyment of the activity, the means. Essentially, this is habit. The activity is what is enjoyed, and whatever is produce from that activity is rationalized as the desired end. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly!

I'm going to stop here, and keep the discussion of time to the other thread, which is more suited to that with the question of what does consciousness do, as a temporal question of activity. This thread asks about ideas, which are more like static things, involving objects, goals, while the other thread is about activities. Of course there is a lot of overlap, but I think it's best to make some sort of division. Maybe you can copy some of the questions from here over to there, if you want me to address them. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is fine. But you did ask me a direct question regarding time in this thread. What if I never read the other thread and only answered the question? We would still be here talking about time regardless... My comment is still relevant to the topic though, I appreciate the reminder! We do not have to go FAR into time here now, that is why I said to ucarr I am jumping over to his thread. TO DO that, that being -- get into it! I was warmly welcomed!

I will say maybe you did not follow up on my answer to your original question because of my formatting and style, that is on me then. It is properly known that my writing style can be not easy to follow, but only for those willing. Some are not willing to even read at all. Good. You should have to try and understand not just follow lines of words. They are not for everyone. Good.

So, I apologize if this is the case. I can focus if I must....

Ha! I just keep going. Can I say perhaps I have no goal? Or should I say my goal is different and it is not required to communicate myself clearly but just to be and be here with ,thoughts...I don't need anyone to get me all the time. It makes it special when they do...but yeah, it is easy to miss the point(s) in my communications but I can assure they exist if I am here commenting. Even if the point is ACTUALLY for me when I re-read my stuff. What was my original one then? LOL, it's wild. Or I am...

How or where should we proceed from your question to me: What could be the cause of motion other than the passing of time? Time passing is what causes things to move. Is "force" the passing of time?

You said, "The point is that justification for the act is produced from an understanding of the relationship between the act and the end (as means to end)." I agree, but is that understanding from the individual or another? That understanding is of interest because it can be two sided....what does it take to do that? To understand? For self to? For all to? — Kizzy

I believe that proper "justification" requires demonstration to another. However, we do use "justification" to refer when a person justifies something to oneself. There is definitely ambiguity here. We could call one a "subjective" justification and the other "objective" justification, but this produces ambiguity in our use of "objective", which could be a problem in epistemology We would now have a proper sense of "objective", meaning of the object, and a sense of "objective" which refers to properties of subjects, like "objective knowledge". The latter is better known as "intersubective", or something like that, and needs to be distinguished from the proper sense of "objective", referring to a proper object.

In our discussion, "the object" is the goal, and the question is whether a person can be acting towards a goal which they do no even apprehend. Notice, that if it is an apprehended goal, it is within the subject's mind, therefore subjective. So this is an indication that the true object, or goal, is not within the subject's mind.

We dont believe ourselves, that is uncertainty. We need to accept the unknown with trust, I said that before. BUT at other times, it happens and is knowing you are right where you are supposed to be in that moment of time, conscious reassuring to self. A feeling becomes a knowing of surety when it is felt within us...we KNOW and no one can know THIS feeling like we do...some will swear they KNOW what you mean. How can they? Do you have to believe them? When would you? When it's nothing but love. Those intentions that are masked while the truth of the matter is that the desire is going to (drive or lead?) us towards the goal no matter what...only one outcome exists for every moment that passes...too quick to ever fully get a hold, however a quick glimpse of that is all we really only NEED. It's in the life lead of a conscious being in harmony with their nature...and in nature? — Kizzy

So I believe this sense of "KNOW" which you refer to here ("knowing you are right where you are supposed to be in that moment of time", for example) is not beyond doubt at all. It's a subjective belief, where "supposed to be" is supported by the subject's apprehension of an object, goal.

But why do you say "the truth of the matter is that the desire is going to (drive or lead?) us towards the goal no matter what"? If a subjective goal, or failure to apprehend the true objective goal can misguide the person, such that the goal is not realized, then what validates your claim that the goal is reached no matter what? To make your claim true, we'd have to remove the reality of "the goal" completely, and instead assert that whatever obtains was "the goal". But that means there could not have been any goal prior to the consequences of the act, because whatever occurs as the result of the act is designated to be the goal.

What if intention can be justified as the morality in the acts itself, could the desire and therefore the goal be knowable or NOW known? — Kizzy

I do not understand how we could talk about the morality in the act itself. In order to be judged as good or bad, the act must be related to something, some kind of principles for judgement. Morality is based on a relationship.

So, where I think, the intentions can be changed in any moment, it is the desire that is the realest thing towards knowing any truth of any reasonable matter because it is that which is the drive behind the light from the darkness and back into the dark... — Kizzy

You seem to be portraying "desire" as an underlying urge to act in a certain direction, while "intention" refers to moment to moment choices of action. So "desire" has more temporal duration, while "intentions" change from moment to moment depending on circumstances. Both of these are subjective, so where would the goal or "object" lie? Would the object be associated with the desire, or would it be associated with the intention?

But what if consciousness updates our being with a goal through the intentions that change in decision making moments, because of whatever reason? What if being conscious of the goal, or what we think is the goal changes the DIRECTION not the desire but how we move in life to get through the next day? I think its important before we or anyone implies their judgement that it's necessary to verify the credibility of the people judging and the objective nature of what comes from a judgement. A group or person may be wrong in their judgement without a standard way of verification that the judgement is necessary in the first place.. — Kizzy

If we position "the goal" in this way, as what is produced by the conscious mind, from moment to moment, as what guides our immediate actions, then how could "desire" relate to the goal? If the conscious decisions dictate our actions from one moment to the next, then it would appear that desire is totally excluded as not having any influence. However, we could allow that desire influences the conscious mind in its decision making, but how would that work?

If the conscious mind consciously apprehends the desire, and formulates its actions toward what is desired, then "the object" must be associated with the desire. But then the conscious mind would have no option but to follow the desire, recognizing that the desire is directed toward the true object, and this would rob the mind's capacity for choice. But if the conscious mind itself is what is directed toward the true object, and the desire influences its apprehension or grasp of its object, then how could the conscious mind possibly grasp and understand this influence? The desire would be interfering in the mind's domain of ruling what is the true object, and the mind would have to ignore it as irrelevant. However, the desire as the persistent underlying force which inclines one to act, cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in this way. For the mind to enact such a dismissal, would be a false, not real way of dealing with the influence of the desire. Therefore the true location of "the object" remains obscured.

I will say maybe you did not follow up on my answer to your original question because of my formatting and style, that is on me then. It is properly known that my writing style can be not easy to follow, but only for those willing. Some are not willing to even read at all. Good. You should have to try and understand not just follow lines of words. They are not for everyone. Good. — Kizzy

To be honest, my reply was long and drawn out already, and I saw the mention of time, and the other thread, as a good place to curtail it, and request that part of your post be addressed in the other thread. I could go back and address it here if you want though. It was just a desire to not put too much material in one post, especially since I was running out of time and wanted to post it. That was my goal.