Quora Answer: Where do I start with discovering Husserl?

Apr 21 2015

The normal suggestion for a place to start studying Husserl is Cartesian Meditations.

But I would suggest reading Ideas 1 instead which seems easier to read even though it is longer.

Another place to start is with his last work which is Crisis in the European Sciences.

Husserl is difficult to read. There is no getting around that. However, if you are interested in Phenomenology then it is rewarding to read about it from the source who invented the idea of this unique and interesting way of doing philosophy.

A much easier place to start with phenomenology in general is with Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception. Then once you get the idea about what Phenomenology is about then one can go back and read Husserl and Heidegger to get the wider context.

The most interesting thing in Husserl is Genetic Phenomenology verses Static Phenomenology. But there is not much about that in Husserl’s main published works. For an introduction to it see The Other Husserl by Welton.

No responses yet

Quora Answer: Philosophy of Mathematics: Is anyone familiar with the work of Fernando Zalamea?

Apr 20 2015

Versus Laboratory Seminar 24: Sheaf Logic & Philosophical Synthesis, with Fernando Zalamea (September 29, 2011)

Versus Laboratory Seminar 24: Sheaf Logic & Philosophical Synthesis, with Fernando Zalamea : Fernando Zalamea : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

http://lumiere.ens.fr/~dbonnay/files/talks/zalamea.pdf

No responses yet

Quora Answer: What are some philosophers I should read about besides Plato and Aristotle?

Apr 20 2015

I recommend reading and re-reading the entire Philosophical Cannon.

[I realize this is an ideal and a practical impossibility. The way to solve this practical problem is to read from the philosophical canon what is most fascinating at any given moment]

Western canon

Harold Bloom Creates a Massive List of Works in The “Western Canon”: Read Many of the Books Free Online

Amazon.com: The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (9780674816473): Randall Collins: Books

History of Philosophy

A History of Eastern Philosophy

History of Philosophy without any gaps

No responses yet

Quora Answer: The view from inside of a mirrored tetrahedron?

Apr 20 2015

The inwardly mirrored tetrahedron is a model for the social level of emergence which is connected by hyper complex algebras to the level of the octonions. The quaternions are are a model of autopoiesis of the existential living organism and the complexnions are a model of the dissipative ordering of consciousness.

Would like to draw your attention to Special Systems Theory. Seehttp://kp0.me/specailsystems

Ben Goertzel also did some papers on Ons at Ben Goertzel’s Research Papers

We had a study group called the Octonion Appreciation Group in the 90s where we collaborated on studying special systems theory which is based on Hyper Complex Algebra. This group included Onar Aam, Ben Goertzel, Tony Smith and Kent Palmer. Onar Aam realized that hyper complex algebras can be modeled as facing mirrors. He created an image of what an inwardly facing Tetrahedron would look like inside via ray tracing. And we attempted to understand the dynamics inside the inwardly mirrored tetrahedron and its vertex figure which has twelve lines intersecting at each point forming a regular polygon which can be seen in these images by Ryan Budney which is a much better rendition than that which we were using back then. I am so happy to have found these images that are key to understanding the theory visually. Onar also produced Mandelbrot type images of the quaternions and octonions at that time.

The basic idea is that the Hyper Complex Algebras are captured in the analogy of facing mirrors so the Reals are a single mirror, the Complex Numbers are two facing mirrors, the Quaternions are three facing mirrors, and the Octonions are four facing mirrors. At the sedenion level which is after the Octonions there can be no regular mirroring configuration and so Onar called this the Funhouse because the mirrors have to be either spaced apart of warped. In the theory I related the real numbers to systems, the complex numbers to Prigogine Dissipative Structures, the quaternions to autopoietic systems of Maturana and Varella, the octonions to reflexive social systems related to reflexive sociology of B. Sandywell and J. O’Malley, A. Blum and others. I see the reflexive tetrahedron as a model of the social. Beyond that the Sedenion is a model of the meta-system.

To answer the question as to what you see: This is a model of interpenetration and intrainclusion as we get in Fa Tsang’s Hua Yen Buddhism. In other words you see a model of the interpenetration of all things. This is happening dynamically in the reflections in the mirrors.

But more important than what you see is the fact that are the Octonion level the associative property as well as the commutative properties are lost in algebra and that means that who sets next to who at the dinner table matters, and also actions cannot be easily reversed. However the division property is still in tact and it will not be lost until we go to the sedenion level which is the next unfolding of the algebras. So more than what you see it is the possible dynamics that is different at these various algebraic levels, and when you lose the associative level then social relations matter, so this is a model of the emergence of the social. What ever you put into this inwardly mirrored tetrahedron is reflected on all sides. So there is closure of appearances which is still regular around each object on all sides. So this is a model of the relation between reality and appearance which is controlled and which has a reference grid which in the reflections is some kind of polytope that has an incidence of twelve edges at each vertex. With the reference grid it is possible to map back and forth between the appearances in the reflections and the actual three dimensional space of the inwardly mirrored tetrahedron. When the mirrors are spaced or warped this becomes much more difficult to transform between the apparent images in the reflections and the actual objects being mirrored within the space of the inwardly mirrored tetrahedron. Each node where 6 lines intersect is a distorted image of what B. Fuller called a vector equilibrium. There is a space-filling lattice of octrahedra and vector equlibria see Page on rwgrayprojects.com

No responses yet

Quora: How much power does idealism have?

Apr 20 2015

The power idealism has is that it is the basic position of Western Philosophy since Kant. As Kant said Idealism is the royal road to Realism. Thus ironically Realism outside idealism is in fact unreal. Same is true of Materialism a form of realism. Russell reintroduced Naive Realism back into mainstream philosophy as the basis of Analytical Philosophy thus returning to what Hegel called Sense Certainty which is the most Naive possible philosophical position and the starting point for the evolution in the Phenomenology of Spirit. A good introduction all of this is Braver’s A Think in this World. The power Idealism has is to organize our world. Everyone since Kant has been bound by his Copernican Revolution even if they were reacting against it. In other words Kantian Idealism is the basic position of the Western Tradition. All other positions are organize themselves around this central position. Even rejectors must explain how their viewpoint works in terms of Kant’s original formulation of idealism as the best possible access to realism.

No responses yet

Quora Answer: Placing Google+ on the Anti-Social spectrum of alienation of “Social Networks”

Oct 18 2014

Namesake.com: So everyone has Google+ now. What are you thoughts? See http://namesake.com/conversation/shawnleonardi/so-everyone-has-google-now-what-are-you-thoughts

I never really liked facebook, so for me it is a pleasant surprise that I like Google+ at all. I think with circles they have refined the facebook model in an essential way, allowing us to talk to different groups of friends differently, rather than one wall fits all style of Facebook, where you have to think about the implications of “friending” someone. On my scale of the anti-social I would place it somewhere between Twitter and Quora on the scale of alienation. I don’t know when we are going to realize that what we are calling “social” media is really “anti-social” and we are involved in a kind of newspeak when we call it “social”, when most of the people we interact with we will never meet. There is a certain amount of alienation evident in this distancing.

I made up a scale that goes from Facebook, to Namesake, to Quora, to Twitter, and finally to 4Chan. Complete anonymity plus only very short term memory is the ultimate in this alienation scale. At least on facebook there is a good chance you actually know some of the people who are your “friends”. Namesake because of its chatty realtime nature is a bit more alienated, and it seems that Google+ tries to split the difference between Namesake and Quora. Notice that many posts are questions trying to elicit comment trails. If you watch it it can be like realtime, except you have to update it yourself. It does not have the limitations of Twitter that makes it more alienated than Quora. Something to consider . . .

See original Quora answer which proposes the anti-social spectrum of alienation as a measure of “social networks” http://think.net/2011/05/28/quora-answer-do-people-value-twitter-or-quora-followers-more-why/

No responses yet

Quora Answer: What are the most fascinating Greek words?

Oct 18 2014

For Heidegger it is Aletheia. His whole philosophy is built around it. It means un-covering, which then makes clear that covering is primary and uncovering is secondary. Aletheia is translated as Truth. Truth is uncovering, not correspondence, as normally thought in the Western tradition.

No responses yet

Quora Answer: Who do you consider the greatest philosopher of the 20th century?

Oct 18 2014

Heidegger is the clear winner here. If you look at the number of commentaries, the number of other philosophers who refer back to Heidegger, and the profundity of his work, one has to conclude that thinking in the twentieth century after Being and Time was profoundly changed, but not as much as it will be changed in the twenty-first century by his recently releasedContributions to Philosophy.

No responses yet

Quora Answer: What do you think was Theodor W. Adorno’s greatest accomplishment?

Oct 18 2014

When you get immersed in and become too fascinated with Heidegger which leads to infatuation then best antidote is Adorno Negative Dialectics. Just what the doctor ordered. His greatest accomplishment is the destruction of ones infatuation with Heidegger. His philosophy itself is purely negative as Negative Dialectics suggests. At the height of  Adorno’s thought he appeals to Walter Benjamin and the concept of constellation for help in his attempt to say something really important different from what Heidegger says.

No responses yet

Quora Answer: Metaphilosophy: What is the aim of philosophy?

Oct 18 2014

There is knowledge and and ignorance.

There is ignorance of knowledge and knowledge of ignorance.

There is knowledge of knowledge and ignorance of ignorance.

Prior to knowledge and ignorance there is appearance and opinion.

There is opinions about appearances and appearances of opinion.

There is appearance of appearance and opinion of opinion.

Then there is knowledge of appearance and appearance of knowledge.

There is knowledge of opinion and opinion of knowledge.

There is ignorance of appearance and appearance of ignorance.

There is ignorance of opinion and opinion concerning ignorance.

But then there is after ignorance and opinion and appearances there is reason or causes or grounds for knowledge and groundlessness or causelessness or ignorance in relation to unreason.

But also there is before ignorance and opinion and appearance there is unreasonableness in relation to knowledge and groundlessness or causelesseness or ignorance in relation to reason

So there is reason and unreason or intuition.

There is reason about unreasonableness and unreason about reasonableness.

There is reason about intuition and intuition about reasonableness.

There is reason about reasons and unreason about nonreasons.

There is intuition about intuitions and unintuitiveness about the nonintuitable.

There is reasonableness about opinions and unreasonableness about opinions.

There are opinions about reasons and opinions about intuitions.

There is reasonableness about appearances and unreasonableness about appearances.

There are appearances of reasonableness and appearances of intuitiveness.

There is reasoning about knowledge and reasoning about ignorance.

There is unreasonableness concerning knowledge and unreasonableness concerning ignorance.

There is intuitions about knowledge and intuitions concerning ignorance.

There is knowledge about reasoning and there is ignorance about unreasoning.

There is reasoning about knowledge and there is intuitions about ignorance.

There is ignorance concerning reason and there is knowledge concerning unreason.

There is reasoning about ignorance and there is intuition about knowledge.

There IS . . . . Is there?

Being of NonBeing and NonBeing of Being.

Being of Being and NonBeing of NonBeing.

Becoming of Being and Being of Becoming.

Being of Appearances and Appearances of Being.

Becoming of Appearances and the Appearances of Becoming.

Appearance of Appearances and Nonappearance of Appearances and Appearance of Nonappearances

Plato said that the man of earth is the one who only believes what he can hold in his hands.

Plato said that there are those who believe in the invisible but are only initiated into the lesser mysteries like the followers of Heraclitus who think the invisible is flux.

Plato said that there are those who believe in the invisible but only initiated into the greater mysteries like the followers of Parmenides who think the invisible is static.

The Sophist said that what we really want is change and changelessness at the same time.

Changing knowledge and changeless knowledge at the same time.

Changing ignorance and changeless ignorance at the same time.

Knowledge and ignorance at the same time.

Changing appearance and unchanging appearance at the same time.

Changing opinion and unchanging opinion at the same time.

Changing appearance and unchanging opinion at the same time.

Changing opinion and unchanging appearance at the same time.

Appearances and opinions at the same time.

Changing reason and changeless unreason at the same time.

Changing unreason and changeless reason at the same time.

Changing reason and unchanging reason at the same time.

Changing reason and unchanging unreason at the same time.

Changing unreason and unchanging reason at the same time.

Reason and unreason at the same time.

Changing reasoning and changeless intuition at the same time.

Changing intuition and changeless reasoning at the same time.

Changing reasoning and unchanging reasoning at the same time.

Changing intuition and unchanging intuition at the same time.

Changing reasoning and unchanging intuition at the same time.

Reasoning and Intuition at the same time.

Wise Knowledge and Knowing Wisdom.

Knowing Knowledge and Wise Wisdom

concerning . . .

Existence and Nonexistence.

Existence of Existence and the Nonexistence of Nonexistence.

Existence of Nonexistence and the Nonexistence of Existence.

Existence of Space and the Nonexistence of Space.

Existence of Time and the Nonexistence of Time.

Existence of Spacetime and the Nonexistence of Spacetime

Existence of Timespace and the Nonexistence of Timespace.

Reasoning about Existence and Intuitions of Existence.

Reasoning about NonExistence and Intuitions of Nonexistence.

Existence of Reasoning and the Existence of Intuitions

NonExistence of Reasoning and the NonExistence of Intuitions.

Reasoning about Spacetime and Intuitions about Spacetime,

Timespace of Existence and Timespace of NonExistence.

NonTimespace of Existence and NonTimespace of NonExistence.

Beyond Existence and NonExistence.

Beyond Spacetime and Timespace.

Beyond Reasoning and Intuition.

Transcendently Transcendent.

Beyond Immanence and Beyond Transcendence

Transcendently Immanent and Immanently Transcendent.

Immanently Immanent.

Beyond Beyond.

Prajna!

GATE GATE PARA GATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA!

“Going, going, going on beyond, always going on beyond, always becoming Buddha.”

See Interlude Meditation Archive

No responses yet

Older »

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog