Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Reddragonf66 <markb_v@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
On 8 aug, 06:33, "M Winther" <m...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Den 2008-08-08 03:28:30 skrev bigflet...@xxxxxxxxx <bigflet...@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Aug 6, 11:21 pm, "M Winther" <m...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When discussing numbers one must also take into account the "quality"
of number, not only their abstract properties. M-L von Franz discusses
such a theory about the primacy of the quality of number in the
universe. The Pythagoreans, for their part, seemed to have viewed
numbers as "things", and as such they were the building blocks of the
universe. It's somewhat similar to Bertrand Russell's logical entities
of "between", "above" "below". These combine with sense-data to form a
universe. It seems like Plato in his thinking included the "qualities"
of entities such as numbers, cups and tables. In Diogenes Laërtius,
book 6, Plato engages Diogenes the Cynic:
»When Plato was discoursing about his "ideas," and using the nouns
"tableness " and "cupness ;" "I, O Plato!" interrupted Diogenes, "see
a table and a cup, but I see no tableness or cupness." Plato made
answer, "That is natural enough, for you have eyes, by which a cup and
a table are contemplated; but you have not intellect, by which
tableness and cupness are seen."«
So the Images were not only abstractions or blueprints which they are
to a modern thinker. I don't think this is properly understood and
that's why we must be careful not to throw the Platonic or Pythagorean
theory out with the bathwater. Robin Robertson in "Jungian Archetypes"
points out how the modern philosophical/mathematical project has
failed in providing a logical world model, i.e. a Theory of
Everything. This follows from Gödel's incompleteness theorem. He makes
the point that the archetypal content of meaning, and not only empty
logics or mathematics, is needed in an explanation of the world. If
this is true, a Theory of Everything cannot be achieved only by way of
abstract constructs, whether mathematical or logical.
Mats Winther
Even the greatest expectation of the intelectuals, is to have 'theory'
as their holy grail.
Pythagoreans also relate numbers as symbols of quality as well as
quantity, and in fact such perception has eeked into daily semantics,
such as 'one eyed' describing an attitude, or the geometrical
symbology such as the star of David.
One of the most subtle, is the $ symbol, being a partly completed
symbol for infinity. Many cultures see 8 as the most powerful,
particularly Chinese. Today being 08 08 08, and the start of the
westernising of the largest population on the planet.
Their turn to see if they can buy infinity.
BOfL
I have thought about the problem of over-theorizing. Theory, I think,
is sometimes used as a defence against the unconscious or the true
relation with life. By theorizing along his beaten track a theorist
can spin himself into a cocoon of theoretical silk-threads,
functioning as a protective mother's womb. To notoriously apply a
ready-made theory in any domain is a sign of a mother complex, when
the theory, in itself, functions as protective shield.
I believe that those philosophical people who bury themselves in
Heidegger, Derrida, and whatnot, conform to such a manner of defence.
But in this case it's a defence against the whole world. They spin
themselves into a cocoon of philosophical theory. Sometimes it is of
the good, of course, while people can be fragile by nature and will
find a new mother in modern philosophy.
In medieval scholastic times they had a corresponding period of
over-estimating the intellect. But Nicolaus Cusanus, in 'De docta
ignorantia' (1440; "On Learned Ignorance") described the learned man
as one who is aware of his own ignorance. This came as a revelation to
him. There are other ways of knowing, too, and this was Cusa's
realization.
A problem with intellectual understanding is that it depotentiates the
unconscious. This is sometimes worthwhile, but sometimes it is
destructive, I suppose. Those theorists who search a Theory of
Everything should know this, i.e. that knowledge of totality depends
on the capacity of the total personality, and not only the intellect.
Mats- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
tss just one god how freaking disappointing
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ClbEbSVszYM&feature=related
.
- Prev by Date: Re: the worth of an unexamined life.
- Next by Date: Re: Are you the Christ ?
- Previous by thread: Re: the worth of an unexamined life.
- Next by thread: Re: Are you the Christ ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
