Joao Leao wrote: > > > James N Rose wrote: > > > > "If there are no qualia but there are universals -- > > which cannot be identified except via qualia -- > > something is awry. > > Why so? Why can universals only be identified > via qualia if they are, by definition, what > is not reducible to qualia !!! > > > > If the Ideal "need not share relational > > aspects with any other domains" > > then that right off the bat kills > > any statements attempted between Ideal and Real." > > What do you mean by "statements attempted > between Ideal and Real"? Give me one such > statement and I will let you know... > > > > > These are not superfluous issues. They challenge > > the consistency and fundamentals of Platonism. > > > > James > > -Joao > --
An etheric uncorruptable realm is a excellent mythos, IMHO. That we act upon and relate to the notion of it speaks to the fact that it is possible to establish an authentic relationship with presumed or virtual extants versus empirical/encounterable extants. Modern Platonists allow that mathematical entities carry this quality and allow exploration of relations that may not have real physical correlates but that eventually, somewhere somehow, expose relations which do. The square root of a negative number has no physical reality (or so it is presumed, because no abject examples have yet been shown/proven) but it has a most definite platonic ideal existence. Plato identifies ideals such as Beauty, Justice, not just the essences of chair and other 'things'. And these -seem- to be requisitely a priori to instantiation, and so, eternal if also intangible. In support of platonism, one correlate would be like trying to educe 'wet' from the equations of QM and atomic interactions. First, most would say it cannot be done (albeit that no one has taken the time to define or make argument doing so). Second, the language of QM doesn't transduce to 'wet' or similar qualia. Yet such qualia would not occur if the primitives (QM) didn't have the relational properties that included eventual conditions and relations which could be labeled as and qualify as this or that 'emerged' qualia. Is 'wet' a platonic realm in the QM tier of existence? Is QM a shadow of instantiated 'wet' which is in turn an instance of the true extant/ideal 'Wet'? So is 'wet' an invisible inherent aspect of QM interactions? There is currently no way to transduce and correlate meaningful information between tiers of systems. But that does not mean it will never be accomplished, or as correlate, that Universals will always stand as some separate perfection. The universe is an holistic operant. Any aspect, meaning or pertinance must have an information relationship with other aspects of existence. "Between" cannot instantiate except in conjunction with reals. But instantiate it does. It is an intangible, a relation, even as it can be subject and measurement. The Platonic 'ideals' - all of them (however anyone perceives them) are -relations-, and are perforce transcribable information and identifable coordinations, in spite of whether anyone has made effort to clarify the associations and relations which coordinate to the identifiable attractors that qualify as 'ideal'. There is and will be shown to be a way to de-mystify Ideal. James
