Hi Mr.Amilcar, Howz Life? First, I would like to cogratulate You, on having a very good and dielectic imagination. Please allow me to make my objections of your theory. My Epistemology and Logic are some what influenced by Spinoza. So, I will be taking some of my definitions from his book - Ethis, concerning God. I believe the methodology he uses is the best.
Now, here I want to make myself very clear about MY distinction between Subscribing and Ascribing to an Idea. Subscribing, I say, is a mere allowance for the non-confermance of an Idea. In other words, as long as you cannot theoritically or practically, disprove an Idea, you subscribe to it. Ascribing, I say, is an intellectual ideanization of a similar kind of Idea about the Idea. In other words, you have a congnitive knowledge of a similar kind Idea, generated from your conception of the Idea. For example, I propose - "I suddenly believe that there cannot be a creation without a creator". You also back up your claim by saying - "Since, there is a-prior knowledge of the creation in the creator, it follows - the existance proves itself". Remember, this is just an example. I am not ready to backup this statement. Ok. Now, if you are right now unable to disprove my idea, you will subscribe to it. But, if you can actually feel, in some spiritual way, just a felling, that something like this is possible. You don't exactly know what I am congniting about my theory. You can never know it. But, you understand the same Idea in another way, depending on your attributes and modifications. So, I say, I ASCRIBE to Spinoza, rather than SUBSCRIBE to his theories. Some of terms, I have defined later in my statement. 1. You have said - You have to be conscious to think about consciousness. I object to this beacuse, you are giving an example for a term you are trying to define, and trying to go beyond the term, even before defining it, taking the example as true, the point proving itself. You can't do that. You have to first define it, have a hypothesis for it, test the hypothesis with a practical experiment like taking a hypothetical example of the definition, refine your hypothesis, till you arrive at the required satisfaction of understanding, finally say - "Yep, I know this". 2. You have also said in your mail that - So the two truths on which all, yes i said it all, sane thoughts are based are 'consciousness'and 'existence'. I object to this beacuse, you have not defined those terms used in that satement. No definition actually exist, apart from a totally subjective view of those two ideas. Let me present my own theory of the differences between thoughts and substances. >From Spinoza's Propositions and Definitions, We know - Every substance is necessarily Infinite. We also know - No attribute of substance can be concieved, from which it will follow that - substance can be divided. Attribute he defines as - By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance. Modifications as -By mode, I mean the modifications ["Affectiones"] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself. Essence as -I consider as belonging to the essence of a thing that, which being given, the thing is necessarily given also, and, which being removed, the thing is necessarily removed also; in other words, that without which the thing, and which itself without the thing, can neither be nor be conceived. My derivation from these propositions is What has to be the Moral or Ideal Behaviour of substance? >From definition 3. of Spinoza which is - By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception, we know substance cannot be conceived in any other order other than throught itself. What we conceive and perceive is only an appearence. Therefor, the substance's behaviour is derived from the its attributes and modifications, which are derived from the necessity of the divine nature which follows as in the infinite number of things in infinite ways. So, the fundamental reality of any substance cannot be concieved. We only see appearences. But, the problem is, God is only the indwelling cause, but not the transient cause. It means the transient cause for the substance is existing in itself. So,a substance can only be be concieved morally (Ideally)only by itself. What you see is NOT what you get. So, once you don't even know what you get, you cannot have a Ideal Conception about its behaviour. I also realized that, since we are accepting that, all attributes of substance are derived from the necessitation of divine nature, which is infinite things in infinite ways, you also have to agree that - it also means all things which fall within the sphere of infinite intellect of God. So, that should also include thoughts, since they also have to be the modification of things, derived from its attributes. So, I claim, I cannot distinguigh between a thought process and, lets say, a molecule of water. Because, if I ask myself, I don't even know in what modifications and attributes, a thought is differing from a molecule of water - I don't know. I can't even say - a thought is a Mental process and a molecule is a Physicalprocess. If I say that, I should be able to distinguish between their essenses. Because, if I only distinguish them only on the appearences,I will miss the core, the essense. So, I can't distinguish between them. So, I have to say - Since, I can't distinguish between two Objects, they have the Same Essense. But they have different appearences. We know -Essense and Existence are the same. Therefore I cannot, at all costs,think about, what might be the morally Ideal behaviour of a Thought Process, because I cannot even distinguish between a thought and a molecule of water. I just DON'T KNOW the Object. What is it made of? What are its attributes? What are its Modifications? I can never know. Right? Do you think, I going in the right direction? Wipe that Simle OFF your face! Thats not a question. Thats an example. What I wanted to say was, you can't even conceptualize - what can be Ideal Conception of this thought? So, without even knowing the Ideal Conception of an Idea, you cannot find out the validity of a statement. Beacuse, you just don't know the Right way. The Moral way and Order of the Universe. So, I think, before you make any statements of yours, like in your mail, you have to first understand their Right, Ideal meaning. As far as I know, Attitude will not do at all. Please forgive me, if I have stepped on some toes here. These are just some Ideas. We are just discussing some interests of us. So, no Offence. As the Communists say - First let us Agree to Disagree. Love, Sri. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
