Before The Light
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeLatest imagesSearchRegisterLog in

 

 Definitional Logic

Go down 
4 posters
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist



Posts : 244
: 270
Join date : 2011-12-26

Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Dec 31, 2011 6:29 pm

without-music wrote:
Surely, you're aware that I was taking issue with your claim to be able to capture reality with definitional logic. If the universe isn't inherently logical, that is logical before and without human logic, then any given logical system (be it definitional or otherwise) is not capturing the Real, it is not disclosing it at all -- rather, it is shaping it, constructing it, constituting it for its own purposes or else abandoning it altogether. The issue at hand, then, must be ontology -- no?
No.
I am talking about learning algebra and you are proclaiming that in no way can it help solve the calculus problem of computing the circumference of a pillar because "reality doesn't work that way".

A) until you learn the algebra, you cannot proclaim what calculus can or cannot do
B) without your own dogmatic blind faith in the lack of a logical universe, you have no argument against one
C) any argument you make for or against anything is pointlessly susceptible to fallacy due to not understanding logic
D) definitions and there use is fundamental to any and all communication so even talking is pointless
E) wait until the evidence is in before you rush to judgment on something you yourself haven't come to understand
F) This is not a thread about ontology with or without my later use of it


without-music wrote:

Perhaps it's easier to just stick within the confines of one's logical system, loudly proclaim, along with Hegel, that the Rational is the Real, and be done with all those silly, nagging, difficult questions for good -- for is this not what you're doing?
What I have done happens to answer ALL of those questions. But if you can't learn the language and its use, you would never be able to know that, would you.

without-music wrote:
You claim your system is absolutely rigorously immutably logical and that it contains within itself the ability to disclose reality as what it is, to get at the truth of the Real -- but then, you scoff at ontology and philosophies of science, insisting again and again that logic is logic and logic is rigorous and valid and truth is available and all we have to do is be stern about what we're defining and when and all will be given to us.
All I claimed was a model to use that answers all of those questions. I have not presented that model thus your criticism of it is not merely a bit premature, but a bit revealing of your religiously judgmental mindset against things you haven't even heard, but obviously fear.

without-music wrote:
Are you so blind, James, as to ignore the fact that this is itself an ontology, that this is itself a ToE...
Definitional Logic certainly isn't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology any more than arithmetic has to do with medicine or physics. Yet you are proclaim that no one should learn arithmetic because it can't cure all diseases known to Man or explain the subatomic universe.

without-music wrote:
Obviously, if I concede all of your points, all of your ontologically slanted and metaphysically loaded points, the last question (of truth) will lean in favour of your system.
Yes, when you yield anything at all to the other guy's argument, you give him a chance to proceed. For heaven sakes, lets never make that mistake.

without-music wrote:
But such has never been the way to deal with systematizers. The questioning must take place on the level of foundation, and in this case, on the basis of your claim that the universe is inherently logical to begin with and that therefore, if our systems of logic are rigorous enough, that we can disclose the universe, logically and truthfully.
So your saying to quickly destroy any foundation suspected of building a temple to a god different than your own?

without-music wrote:
Quote :
AFTER such rigor is established, one can develop a proposed model relating to ontology and even a ToE.
But that would be a separate issue.
Emphatically not. "Such rigor," as I've written above, is itself a model.
So what, never draw a square or someone might think the universe is square?
Never define any words you use else someone might think they know something?
Great strategy for a Magog, but again, it doesn't belong here nor in this forum.

without-music wrote:
In a discussion like this, the profundity of Nietzsche is startling. "In [logic] reality is not encountered at all, not even as a problem." Do you not propose that your system is to be built, its rigor established, before we are to deal with the question of reality?
Your kidding right?
You seriously think that you are going to deal with reality void of rational thought?
Granted animals manage to keep their species going despite their inability to cognitively think, but they still can't even walk without their little brains working out the logic involved; "this nerve causes that response which leads to this effect which opportunes that situation upon which I can trigger this nerve,.. and so on."

without-music wrote:
Is this exactly not what Nietzsche speaks of? At bottom, the question of reality is refused entry. At finish, the system contents itself with an auto-fixation that produces a simulacrum of the Real. The Real is never encountered, not even as a problem.
A) Nietzsche obviously wrote your bible... but not mine.
B) If Nietzsche can handle reality with reasoning, fine. Go for it. Such has nothing to do with others.
C) Look around at where Nietzschianism brings a society.. Nazism/Totalitarianism
D) defend your lord Nietzsche in your own thread. He has nothing to do with definitional logic.

without-music wrote:
And I've always been rather fond of Herbert's Dune: "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
But then again, "all things change".
Back to top Go down
without-music
builder
builder
without-music


Posts : 37
: 47
Join date : 2011-11-16

Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Dec 31, 2011 7:11 pm

You tire me, James. But your claim that Nietzsche leads to Nazism did give me a chuckle. Your startling blindness to what your hyper-logicizing has done to us, however, only lead me to sigh. Schiller, Horkheimer, Adorno, Deleuze -- all speak well on the danger in over-systematizing, in over-rationalizing. Not that it matters to you. My wager is that your arrogance no longer permits you the ability to read the work of others. But, alas, I grow weary of this exchange. Your alphabetizing condescension makes my eyes droop. One must love one's enemies, but only when they are a challenge, an impetus to grow and ascend. I can't even grant you the dignity of enmity. Have fun with your thread, James. I need a nap.
Back to top Go down
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist



Posts : 244
: 270
Join date : 2011-12-26

Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Dec 31, 2011 7:50 pm

without-music wrote:
You tire me, James. But your claim that Nietzsche leads to Nazism did give me a chuckle. Your startling blindness to what your hyper-logicizing has done to us, however, only lead me to sigh. Schiller, Horkheimer, Adorno, Deleuze -- all speak well on the danger in over-systematizing, in over-rationalizing. Not that it matters to you. My wager is that your arrogance no longer permits you the ability to read the work of others. But, alas, I grow weary of this exchange. Your alphabetizing condescension makes my eyes droop. One must love one's enemies, but only when they are a challenge, an impetus to grow and ascend. I can't even grant you the dignity of enmity. Have fun with your thread, James. I need a nap.
Typically enacting the arrogance of which you accuse.
"Let's not learn arithmetic, my holy ancient prophets have already shown how foolish it is. We of great wisdom know better."
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 01, 2012 3:05 pm

It fear that this discussion, which has been very interesting to read, has reached a stalemate. From my perspective, defined by value ontology, both James S Saint and without-music stand on valid ground. Your perspectives are fundamentally different. The terms in which the universe is regarded are different, the world is "valued in terms of self-value" in different ways. I think that value ontology may bring some resolve.

JSS works from a thoroughly rational perspective, as thoroughly rational as I have seen on any philosophy forum. What is explained here as definitional logic is a solid explanation of mathematics: terms are defined by their use for creating arguments, not by their being true-in-themselves. They can only be 'true', otherwise they are not even proper terms. What they are true to is the construct, of which they are part. Otherwise, they do not exist.

A problem arises when claims are made that such terms can in fact explain the physical universe. JSS has not yet presented his model, so no one can judge if in fact such a thing is possible - if in fact pure logic can do the job of explaining the physical. I for me am very interested in this, even to simply know more of how such a connection from logic to the physical (instead of vice versa, as logic is usually assumed to have been established) may possibly work. That it may work is not unimaginable, considering that "the physical" is itself an interpretation.

What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to "objectively observe" (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.

If this is in fact accomplished, this is of course nothing short of revolutionary, not to mention rather dangerous. What would have been accomplished then, is that the rational man has managed to value the universe effectively in his own terms, and established his own ground-term, his self-valuing as a rational being, to perfection.

It is hard to say if the benefits or the danger outweighs. For what is this rational being? Here, Nietzsche becomes important, and without-musics position must be considered, and developed. What he does is to refuse to value being ("the Real") in terms of a rational being. He values himself as a being other than as a rational -- he values the passionate element of himself as an entity, as Nietzsche did, as poets do -- life as art, not as to be controlled. Needless to say, this is a workable perspective. Logic, the process of identification, comparison and selection does exists here, but it is kept subconscious, or rather un-explicated, and it is subjected to that mysterious 'faculty' of being, the aesthetic sense. In another word: rapture.

It seems that we are dealing with the real-life re-emerging of the dichotomy Apollo - Dionysus. To Dionysus, Apollo represents the Ontological Tyranny. To Apollo, Dionysos represents evil, sin. The conflict can not be rationally resolved -- the very use of ratio with the intent to resolve to a final conclusion is the means of Apollo, to fortify himself in the face of the Dionysian, to make himself into an eternally lasting truth. The Dionysian also wants eternity - but what he wants is not to last, not at least in terms of an edifice, of sameness -- he delights in the permanence of change, which can forever give birth to new creation.

The Dionysian will always attempt to value the Apollonian into its own terms, bring into the fixed and permanent an unexpected element. I can not oversee the consequences of a perfectly rational self-valuing/valuing in terms of self-value. The war of the gods would expectedly rage on on a higher arc.

Back to top Go down
without-music
builder
builder
without-music


Posts : 37
: 47
Join date : 2011-11-16

Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 01, 2012 4:42 pm

Yes, well said, Fixed. I have to apologize for my lack of patience, but James and I have had this argument (as well as ones similar) a number of times on ILP.

Quote :
That it may work is not unimaginable, considering that "the physical" is itself an interpretation.

What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to "objectively observe" (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.
Indeed. I have gotten at this idea with James before, the idea that the physical is itself a (certain, necessary, inevitable) falsification that is always-already human. If we can affirm this notion, and speak of the Real in terms of the Symbolic (which is to say, discard the Real altogether as unnecessary Platonism, as Nietzsche would have us do), then space is made in which a project like James's can be allowed to take hold. I believe I have already illustrated the trouble I have with James's project here, so I'll leave it at that.

The comparison between Dionysian and Apollonian is apt. I suppose, in some sense, the conflict between James and I is a microcosm for the primordial conflict at the heart of the human condition, the conflict that gives birth to both life and art -- and, with enough finesse, perhaps life as art.
Back to top Go down
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist



Posts : 244
: 270
Join date : 2011-12-26

Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 01, 2012 6:39 pm

If you guys don't mind, I transferred this discussion over to the thread concerning the ToE project as the discussion hasn't actually been about Definitional Logic, but rather about the effort to further utilize such foundation.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Definitional Logic    Definitional Logic  - Page 2 Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Definitional Logic
Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Working Through The Logic
» logic of beliefs
» the summit of value logic
» Relativity Logic
» Self-Valuing Logic

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Storm :: Logic-
Jump to: