On 4 February 2012 15:44, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

> Is it inappropriate to use the "One" in an axiomatic form as part of a
> theory, not that I am proposing the concept just that as a theory standing
> on its own? It makes sense to me as it leads inevitably to ontological
> implications that both firm up the theory of Neutral monism (as per Bertrand
> Russell) and allow for the dualism (per Vaughan Pratt) that I am
> researching.

I'm not sure, to tell you the truth.  I must say that my intuition of
the centrality of "oneness" - what I've sometimes called the solipsism
of the One - is at the heart of my recent discussions with Bruno
around the general topic of "why am I me and not you?".  But at the
same time, precisely as a result of those very conversations, I'm less
sure that anything directly communicable follows from that intuition,
unless it be a sharing of the intuition itself.  Is a common intuition
an axiom?  What is deducible from it, other than a vague sense that
somehow "whatever I am most primitively" will always find some
uniquely present conscious expression?  If you can indeed employ the
axiomatic method to put more detailed flesh on these bones, it would
be most helpful.

David


> On 2/4/2012 10:05 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 4 February 2012 14:38, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> Does my claim that our primitive ground must be neutral with respect to
>>> any properties make any sense? It like the zero of arithmetic from which
>>> we
>>> can extricate any set of positive and negative quantities in pairs such
>>> that
>>> their sum is equal to zero. What I see in Bruno's interpretation of COMP
>>> is
>>> that it permits for the primitive to have a set of properties (numbers
>>> and +
>>> and *) to the exclusion of its complementary opposites. Since this is a
>>> violation of neutrality, thus I see a fatal flaw in Bruno's Ideal monist
>>> interpretation.
>>
>> I think it may make some intuitive sense, but I don't quite see what
>> role it could play in a theory, in the technical sense Bruno proposes.
>>  For example, Bruno sometimes refers to the metaphor of the One - from
>> Plotinus.  Sometimes in my mind's eye I think of the symmetry of the
>> One as somehow breaking into an infinity of "computational"
>> self-relations, individuated instances of consciousness then emerging
>> from that complexity as spatio-temporally-distinguishable aspects of
>> the differentiated self-intimacy thus engendered.  The seamless
>> symmetry of the One - the solus ipse, if you like - might indeed serve
>> here as a sort of primitive neutral background, any further properties
>> emerging only as a consequence of the subsequent breaking of that
>> primal symmetry.
>
>
> Hi David,
>
>    This concept, as you explain it ,is exactly what I have in mind even to
> the part about the (unnameable! cardinality of) "infinity of "computational"
> self-relations" each potentially generating the "individuated instances of
> consciousness" as per Bruno's Loebian "Machine" idea. My claim is that this
> "primitive neutral background" of the "One" is infinitely deeper even than
> the (N, +, *) of Bruno as its symmetry must be perfect and thus neutral even
> with respect to (N, +, *).
>
>
>>
>> But this is merely an intuitive attempt to grasp the ungraspable, not
>> a theory, in the sense of something that has any practical
>> consequences (nothing being so practical as a good theory).  I'd
>> certainly be interested if you have anything more substantial to
>> propose.
>>
>    Is it inappropriate to use the "One" in an axiomatic form as part of a
> theory, not that I am proposing the concept just that as a theory standing
> on its own? It makes sense to me as it leads inevitably to ontological
> implications that both firm up the theory of Neutral monism (as per Bertrand
> Russell) and allow for the dualism (per Vaughan Pratt) that I am
> researching. The theory that I am considering is a hybrid of many concepts
> from many other people, and Bruno Marchal result is a big part of it as his
> result shows how consciousness can emerge from computations on the Mind side
> of the duality. My own contribution to the theory, explaining how
> interactions between "minds" occurs, is just a tiny piece of it.
>
>
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to