On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
> But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious?
I think that human subjectivity is a range of qualities of experience, some
rooted in the sub-personal, some in the super-personal, and some reflected
from the impersonal ranges. From this island of possible personal
sensitivities, the influences arising from beneath, behind, or beyond us
does seem mysterious, but from an absolute perspective, the only thing
mysterious is why we should assume that it is not fundamental.
> If form/geometry is first and math second (which fits my own
> understanding at this time) the what is it that is apprehending math?
> And does it have form?
I wouldn't say that one is first or second to the other, only that there is
no path from one to the other without the commonality of the third - which
is personal sense. What it is that apprehends math and form is, by
triangulation, the common opposite of both. Not formless nor irrational,
but trans-rational and form-seeking. I throw around pretentious terms like
Trans-Rational algebras, or apocatastatic gestalts, but what I mean is that
we see whole images in spite of the disjunct pixels which are presumed to
compose them. We jump to conclusions and bridge cognitive gaps, we
anticipate teleologically rather than only passively react.
> > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:31:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com
> >> > If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics
> >> Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite
> >> number of dimensions as in Hilbert space even though they have no
> >> experience of such things.
> > I missed it at first, but actually your example makes my point exactly.
> > the universe were primitively arithmetic, it also would not require any
> > tactile experience to support its computations in 1, 2, 3, or four
> > dimensions.
> > This is a great topic for me because even people with very Western
> > orientations should be able to see that sensory distinctions are more
> > primitive than mathematical universalities this way, without getting
> > any deep philosophical discussions about subjectivity. The simple and
> > unavoidable truth is: Geometry is mathematically impossible. Mathematics
> > has no power to generate points in space, or lines, shapes, volumes,
> > These forms are not mathematical, they are sensory experiences, and
> > experiences of the visual-tangible channels of public awareness at that.
> > You can't get a body out of math, unless you are already expecting a
> > to be possible, and you have real bodies to use to project simulated
> > onto.
> > Craig
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> My blog: http://firequery.blogspot.com/
> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison
> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity." --H. P.
> Wells, "A Short History of the World"
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.