ST: "Would it be ever possible to change the human ways to save ourselves?"

What do you wish to be saved from?

Aesthetics for world peace? Why not metaphysics for world domination?

I'm afraid this thread has very little to do with philosophical research...

Isn't Aesthetics for world peace, one of those Form rather than Function approaches?

Make it look good, and no one will know that it doesn't work?

Metaphysicians WOULD dominate the world, if they could agree on what they meant by "world"...

Aesthetics for World Peace, reminds me of the "Gun Sculpture" made by a local artist, that is doing the rounds of the world arts scene.... Last heard from, the Chinese Government made them take down the Pictures of the Victims of Guns, because some of them were Chinese...

It seems it is OK to make a sculpture out of guns, but not to show what the victims look like...

Heh!

GS: "Isn't Aesthetics for world peace, one of those Form rather than Function approaches?"

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with beauty.

Yeah, that is what I thought.

If it is beautiful but it doesn't work people will buy it anyway!

Now that IS a question of form over function, Graeme...

On the other hand, a work of art functions as such. It follows that the form of a work of art is subordinate to its function as a work of art - omigod, I've just justified the existence of art critics!!!

Form over Function? How could beauty bring forth peace?

For artists, it's the issue of drawing what one sees, or colors or forms coming out of oneself? Now Mozart has been quoted for his music functioning, out of his form of pure beauty. If they can be one, just like yoga meditation unify oneselves with universe beauty, then would it be possible to transform human reality? How?

ST: "How could beauty bring forth peace?"

What does beauty have to do with art? Most art now is ugly. Dipping a crucifix in a urinal isn't supposed to be beautiful. It is supposed to be 'artistic' whatever that means. How is blasphemy supposed to bring forth peace? It isn't...

"a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

~Luke 12:53

What is the relationships between us as existance and physical realities within and without, and time and eternity, and individual sense, creation, communication of universal beauty? Where is the whole human activities Aesthetics situated?

BO: "What is the logic and foudation of mathematics and philosophy, and of art? Art!"

"Art" is supposed to do with "beauty"? But, certainly, how could any of them bring forth peace. Beyond logic, what is the foundation? I suppose they all have to do with sense and knowledge, known to have originated with the birth of "life"? Beauty also, beyond logic? If knowledge could not save us, is there any possibilities that beauty could? Is beauty beyond logic, and is related to basic foundation, which could be force like religion, and yet perhaps without too much of extras added to religion, for really ugly? Could art be our future?!

"What is the relationships between us as existance and physical realities"

There seems to be an implication that there is some distinction between "existence" and "physical reality". Ae you suggesting that things "exist" that are not part of "physical reality", or that "existence" doesn't apply to physical reality? For that matter, what distinctions would you draw between "existence" and "reality"?

Human beings don't experience the universe atemporally, but we can't (according to our most succesful physical theories) find "human time" in the physical world. "Individual sense" is meaningless: "sense" is a linguistic notion, and languages are public (thus sense is a "collective" phenomenon supervening on communication)

"Universal beauty": do you mean "absolute" beauty? Universal beauty would imply that, AT LEAST, for any thing, if that thing had a certain property, then any person would find that thing beautiful. As the sense of beauty tends to be culturally and socially determined, this seems unlikey - unless, of course, you're going to postulate some realm of Platonic Perfections.

Like most logicians (and I suppose mathematicians), I find logic and mathematics supremely beautiful. This being the case, and from your remarks, could we draw the conclusion that the future of humanity could be logic and mathematics?

(PS - what's religion got to do with it? Why not marketing, or politics, or popular psychology, or any of the other irrelevancies with which the Great Uneducated are perpetually duped?)

DH: "There seems to be an implication that there is some distinction between 'existence' and 'physical reality.'"

Clearly there some distinction between existence and physical reality. Mathematicians frequently posit existence with total disregard for physical reality.

DH: "Human beings don't experience the universe atemporally, but we can't (according to our most succesful physical theories) find "human time" in the physical world."

I have no idea what you mean by this claim. Suppose I say that I went shopping yesterday evening. Am I lying? You seem to be saying that such a statement is necessarily a lie, since I am granting some reality to 'human time.'

DH: "'Individual sense' is meaningless..."

I think "Individual sense" is ambiguous. I would not say 'meaningless.'

"Universal beauty" is an interesting conception. It is difficult to say what it refers to. Sometimes people talk of beauty, truth and goodness as three transcendental values. I suppose one might think of beauty as First, truth as Second and goodness as Third. Beauty is, perhaps, most difficult to deal with philosophically.

As for religion, I think that in Buddhism (or Daoism?) there is some effort to elevate beauty as a religious value. Thus much effort is sometimes devoted to creating the perfect garden, or the perfect design in sand.

Somehow I doubt that creating the perfect garden will do much to promote world peace. But who am I to say?

#5: Existence beauty and Physical reality? Stephen Hawking "The Grand Design" Amazon.

I hadn't known until today that, quantum theory predicts the multiverse existence (ME), each with iits own nature laws. But if so, our physical reality is our universe's nature laws' universe. Could we "sense" beyond it to the ME realm, rather than to Platonic Perfections (PP) realm? Could "time" as such, together with our "sense" and its "existence" belong to that ME, rather than PP? Could the sense of beauty (universal at least to many humans and animals?) and quantum theory quantum exist in the ME realm?

Could all our supremely beautiful feeling overcome most of our "irrelevancies" for the world peace?

I was wondering whether Tsai made any distinctions, Bill.

ST: "I hadn't known until today that, quantum theory predicts the multiverse existence (ME), each with iits own nature laws."

The problem with such theories is that they 'predict' things that are most likely unknowable and unprovable. Thus the 'prediction' would seem to be mostly empty rhetoric.

DH: "I was wondering whether Tsai made any distinctions, Bill."

It seems unlikely.

BH: " 'Prediction' would seem to be mostly empty rhetoric." "It seems unlikely."

DH" "Whether Tsai make any distinctions".

Could it be not entirely "empty rhetoric" and "unlikely"?

If not, could there be our innate distinction between our physical reality, and, our knowledge with logic of quantum theory and our sense of extraordinary sometimes, beauty? Logically speaking. If so, then our business could be to see the relationships between them, and how we could save ourselves with the help of all we could have beyond physical reality only, it seems to me.

#7: ST: " 'predict' things that are most likely unknowable and unprovable."

I have had my basic question from my very early days that coundn't be solved for myself: it seems to me, that as personally for myself why I am myself rather than anyone or anything else, and, in the first place, why or in what sense I exist. I have been told not to think about it, if it doesn't help or make any differences? The simple sense of beauty and joy does help me a lot, instead. And, another matter not like that, that I can see far, far away, probably over an unlimited distance over related unlimited time, as far as the light can reach my eyes.

The latter is within our physical reality, and so could be known and provable. For the former, it is beyond that. I think it could be known and provable that I exist. However, the fact for myself at least, that I am myself only, the simple fact that I know I am myself and I exist perhaps even without any something(?) is deeply and totally mysterious for myself, and far beyond any issue of whether knowable or provable. It is far better for myself to wonder about the mysterious beauty of everything and relationships and laws.

Perhaps, our lives of this particular physical realitiy of this universe, are to live our beautiful and joyous lives, in proper and right relationships with the mysterious multi-universes "existence" wisely, with simple understandings of "being good". Isn't it so simple and basic?

Science is all about proof. As such, talk about "mysterious multi-universes" seems 'unscientific.' That in itself doesn't mean it is wrong. In my humble opinion, it is not credible, but you might disagree. And, of course, it might make you feel good... as a sort of quasi-religious belief.

#8: BO: "Science is all about proof", Amazon.com

Yes, the issue here is about "science", I agree, and further ultimately about our true understanding of all things, and:

1) Is "quantum theory" science or credible scientific theory?

2) Is Stephen Hawking's application of the quantum theory in their book, "The Grand Design" credible scientifically, as he has stated, according to "the "model-dependent" theory of reality", "why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature"?

3) And, further as he has stated that, they have assessed "M-theory, an explanation of the laws governing multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complet "theory of everything", perhaps I venture including the mystery of "existence"? And, perhaps that is where we could pursue the true meaning of "spirituality" even scietifically, ra ther than just being restricted within "quasi-religious beleif? And, perhaps that is where we could try to truely understand the ultimate reality of ourselves, and thereby strive for world peace?

Perhaps there should be no "theory of everything?" I see no reason why science should attempt to answer what can not be verified scientifically. Certainly if science tells us anything it is that we should look for proof. But how is such a theory to be proven?

And even if it could be proven, how would its proof effect world peace? I don't see the connection.

#9: "How would its proof effect world peace?" Just want a little better hope.

That is, after all I could possibly hope for, estimating all human possibilities, observing what all "the best and the brightest" humans with best intentions could do, and after thinking about my desperate stratagies like obraining extremely expensive gas price and so on, and human religions and the like, as well as all the marvelous and brilliant sciences and technologies, finally forced to search for our basic and simple beings for our "salvation". Perhaps, we need ancient wise men for our world peace never obtained in all our histories? Wisdom and happiness from simple yet universal and never-failing existence of beauty?

#18. BO 091520102324 : "unknowable unprovable". >>

I may not be conforming to the discussion, but just i wanted to add. Long back ago, i [not some how, only the papers have been lost, many people do not afford even enough papers or enough attachment to the papers, it did hurt] arrived at the following:

when we are trying to discover new ideas/models [say, trying to model, what even you feel, day after bipolar day], one generally tries to remove uncertainty posed by a particular question; by working out the answer, the uncertainity is removed.

Next, some times, you think about what is previously unknown [that is, the concept is, as far as the the thinker knows, is unknown], and you ponder over it, you arrive at knowledge/idea previously "unknown", so the unknow has been removed, and you are happier.

Next, there do lie even something "unrecognisible". Here, you have "stumbled upon" or more possibly, you are on the shores of, something, which is not even yet recognised as meaning, and now you have to make it further knowable, ie relate it more narratively/structurally to existing knowledge, then after only will the others able to know the new know as possible. Only after that, the interior properties of this idea has to be explored, to remove the uncertainities associated with. Now remove the uncertainity, you get/complete that knowledge.

i used to think, the certainity, uncertaininty, unknow, and unrecognise, are different dimensions. Now i think, we may also approximate like [quantification is only as a suggestion, NOT empirical]: 0.01 to 0.99 uncertainity regarding something as correct=uncertainity, 0.0001 to 0.0099 uncertainity regarding something as correct=unknow, beyond that=unrecognise.

Or, to be simpler, 0.1 itself is unknow, and 0.01 is unrecognise. [again, not empirical; i think, a correct scale can be constructed, after precisely defining the idea thought, and taking the standard protocol to be taken while so constructing]. I think an apparnt idae as to at which stage our any question stands, can help our thinking process. [applied to myself, such limitation may not be for others].

#10: SN: So far I have been here only in the binary realm: science and not science.

And, I assume only the science is 100% knowable and provable, and all others are less than 100%. And, I guess math here are only symbols representing different items, and measurement?

ST: "And, I assume only the science is 100% knowable and provable, and all others are less than 100%. And, I guess math here are only symbols representing different items, and measurement?"

I am not a positivist, but many scientists equate the scientific method with positivism. Saying that something is not provable doesn't mean that it isn't true.

I have no idea what you mean by "100% knowable and provable." It would seem to be a very naive application of probability and statistics. I have no problem with the use of such techniques in science.

But when it comes to your multi-universes... I think the probability of proving something genuinely convincing is close to zero. It is a nice, non-scientific theory. It may even be true.

But the connection between this theory and world peace seems very doubtful.

#11: BO: "But the connection between this [multi-universes] theory and world peace seems very doubtful"

This is fundamental and most important for me. It seems to me, as far as our own universe's physical reality is concerned, this particular physical "existence" is more than binary, it's rich with multidimensional beauty, upon which human arts have evolved.

Moreover, beyond this universe's human war and peace dualitiy and all similar realities, our own spirituality and physical/non-physical mysteries and incredible beauties, perhaps, are fundamentally related to the multiverse "existence", that is, if it exists!? How to cultivate and nurture that relationships is my aim: to see beyond wars/peace, and to promote the beauties of human nature, and thereby to own "world peace" within ourselves and beyond, as the way to realize our own true nature and existence, in this unverse or beyond, to reach bbc, beyond borders communities.

ST #10 092220100819: You have said you "assume", nothing wrong proceeding based on assumptions,we can find what is the result,and how much it can be realistic, and what use the fictional part of the result can be put. [i think information can provide (provides) a concreteness option for fiction?]. But science as 100% provable, etc? It's true, things have to be made 100% knowable, etc. but what is known is so limited/little,and what is still unknown is so much out-sized, how is that science already is all? That's the ultimate aim of every say-year in history, but does not properties continually get added on too? I even suspect the simple word for the simple visual color "black" carries more property/characteristics ascribed/discovered today than say 100 or 1000 years back, even some minimum change even in 10 years. I shouldn't claim the meaning of "100" or "1000" could/have changed, but certainly many scientific ideas/conclusions (inevitably?) [ineluctably?] change [even though i am not taking up the if-so-why of here].

____

Also i wanted to respond to the multiverse/beauty/peace. Let me take up now one by one.

Multiverse: I have a tendency to link folk to science; this is only i think for a longing for belongingness [to science], and no more. How can a theory and a story be treated at par?

I was reminded of 1978, discussing with my uncle TKR [both of us commoners, non-scientists, but chemistry students] (parallel) universes inhabiting the same "space" as we do, but obeying different physics (?), so we are/may not aware of them, or feel them.

There were also subsequent imaginations of what happens when light comes to rest, when matter reaches the speed of light, etc. i imagined [theorised!] the world at the speed of light, will be consisting of three dimensions of time and one dimension of space, but i felt the Joulemen [people with body composed only of waves or bounded-waves] will be moving in the three dimensions of time and would be measuring space pass, but i quickly came to the thought that actually the 3T-1S and 3S-1T experiences effectively may not be very differentiable [indistinguishable in said ways?] from each other. And when jouleman comes to Rest, probably he will acquire concreteness! Not over-different from flashes of light turning in to angels? But ofcourse i didn't reach that that way; through pure "scientific thought-work" only!

Next, multiverse, though not a new word. And again going back, may be to a 1983 comparable idea. If multiverses can be born, then it's time we start about the "properties" of the "laws of physics". That is, the laws constitute the "objects" here, the way they associate with each other, the why they associate that way, and therefore the different worlds[multiverses] they give rise to. A similar way of thinking through concepts [combining them, etc] I called Third Development those days, after arithmetic-derived thinking, and language-derived thinking, you thought based on as-if-photistic concepts. Now science is taking us to thinking at the level of "laws and their dynamics". Here i should clarify, i mean only the laws of physics, not the legislated laws. I admit i am not over-clear about the exact what of the "laws?" and their "dynamics?".

Now, my response to the Beauty. John Keats saw beauty and truth perhaps as inalienable. Models/ theories/ concepts have been called beautiful, perhaps "the experiencing of understanding" perhaps reified into beauty. Then we have beauty supplied by our likes.

I think there is no such intrinsic thing as beauty, may be it is even an ensemble phenomenon, something should be liked, accidentally, by an overwhelming demography, nothing more. What is intrinsically different between a beautiful flower and an ugly ?flower. There is nothing more than what in say their shapes, but eliminating all other considerations, merely, does a "beautiful shape" merits more than the "ugly" shape? I could not say yes. Mere design, i think, is even, beneath consideration.

Then why beauty. there is no at all getting away from it, this is true, "intrinsic worth" or not. This was also once 1981 a torment. I arrived that beautify could not be other than (in another way of seeing) responsibility. but now i know you can define it at any level. Attainment of a pre-defined ("valued") result is beauty. This way, beauty becomes an "inner experience of satisfaction/fulfillment", it is an ?human experience. If you want to liberate it, and find universal value for beauty, i think, because of the ensemble effect, that also may be possible. Ofcourse, myself also, what i do if i dont try such vast generalisations, but i think so far i had not considered, somewhy, as BO says, even if would have had consumed me, i have not yet treated it as an important virtue.

Next, to Peace from Beauty. [i used to say 1981, clematic beauty should lead to irenic peace]. There is nothing wrong. We should begin for good aims starting from familiar things.

We need to expand by endowing further virtues to the familiar. Will beautiful moments alone make people better peaceable? I wonder if beauty raises the people to somewhat excited state, at that state people are also of beautiful/wonderful behavior, but reverting back to the ground [away from b] state, lapses back to the routine behavior. What could appeal people in their commonsense behavior, to become more disinterestedly sociable/peaceable? I think, an object/action of care (share, support, respect, trust, fairness) does appeal people at their mere ground states, and keeps the reciprocating behavior bonded for long after. Since our aim is peace, such a silent quality, the impregnating shall also be seamless, to give as-if-naturalising results. I think beauty communicates, while people would/may like to perceive the care.

#22. ST #10 092220100819: I think, perhaps you have already meant what i had been writing in the previous post, the several beauties of human nature; can not you mean the beauties enshrined in care/respect/trust/fairness. Not, not in arts or only-aesthetics. Whatever uplifts us need not be restricted to of our visual or aural or kinesic pleasure. It can also uplift us through our giving and requiting spontaneity.

I wonder what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would think of all this? No doubt about it... he would find it quite funny.

#12: SN: "nothing wrong proceeding based on assumptions", "how is that science already is all?"

Is it that the logic of "science/not science" simply an assumption? And here its math is to measure between 0 and 100%, excluding both 0 and 100%? Our human mental works in this regard, perhaps is thereby restricted, logically and linguistically, within the human and this universe we reside in (and perhaps not necessarily completely limited to), realms?

That is about "science", which is not restricted to and controlled by any attributes of the nature. But, what about any feelings and senses of beauty and so on, examinable by us, even if all other universes cannot be seen by us?

#23. ST 092520100058 :

1. science/notscience assumption: [in a generalised vein] what is not without [partial] assumptions.

2. excluding both 0% and 100%: i even wonder if they exist.

3. science not connected to nature: i wonder if we are not talking about things existing. where without or before. [may be some {laws of physics} realm?].[again, this will also be interesting; but difficult even to imagine].

4. what is not seen presently, need not exist presently. so disconsiderible. [not seen = unrecognisible].

5. we examine things first for their commonweal, and if time remains, for beauty and so on. Thanks for the "so on", i think "that" only will make the examination useful. No doubt beauty will attract our attention first, but it would be upto us to seamlessly proceed to the others/beyond(=so on).

6. feelings and senses - i would say, should seamlessly transform to ''concrete productivity''.

i am almost certain, more/higher/intenser the feeling, so the productivity potential. If some thing starts as a poem, it will end as a maths-model. Actually, law of anti-cussedity.

ST: "Is it that the logic of "science/not science" simply an assumption?"

Science proves itself through predictions which are seen to be true. Indeed, the internet itself serves to demonstrate scientific theories, regarding the nature of matter and the properties of electric currents. We would not be engaged in this discussion were it not for science.

#13: BO: "Science proves itself through predictions which are seen to be true." But not 100%. Is Stephen Hawking's multiverse theory application of quantum theory more than 50% at least, correct?

Indeed, it's so. My point here is to correct my recent statement that only the "science" is 100% "knowable and provable", and to indicate that science/not science logic is simply an assumption of binary classification, upon which we deal with our physical realities. But, it seems to me, in dealing with our physical realities, nothing really is 100%, except within our own logic realm. That is, when we "prove" science as "seen to be true", that is how we logically deal with the physical realities, which seem to me, beyond our 100% grasps. So science improves itself almost all the time, by most scientists who acknowledge the imperfection, or less than 100%, of science.

Does it seen by you that S Hawking's theory about the Multiverse has been or going to be proven to be true?

ST: "My point here is to correct my recent statement that only the "science" is 100% "knowable and provable", and to indicate that science/not science logic is simply an assumption of binary classification, upon which we deal with our physical realities."

It seems to me that mathematics and logic are knowable.

ST: "Does it seen by you that S Hawking's theory about the Multiverse has been or going to be proven to be true?"

I do not think it can be proven true. Everything we are able to know belongs to the universe. How can we go beyond what is knowable? It makes no sense to me, but is a quasi-religion. It may be true. But I think it can never be demonstrated.

#14: BO: "Everything we are able to know belongs to the universe. How can we go beyond what is knowable? It makes no sense to me, but is a quasi-religion. It may be true. But I think it can never be demonstrated." Could we feel "beyond what is knowable"?

As you can see I'm betting on this, that we could feel "beyond what is knowable", tlhat that "feeling" is beyond our physical reality, that that is the basic "existence". That's why aesthetics could aim for world peace seriously, I hope.

ST: "As you can see I'm betting on this, that we could feel "beyond what is knowable", tlhat that "feeling" is beyond our physical reality, that that is the basic "existence". That's why aesthetics could aim for world peace seriously, I hope."

I take your 'feeling' to be a quasi-religious belief. It may be pleasing to you. It may even be true.

Yet, I wonder what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would think of all this. He would, I suppose, laugh at the idea that you can stop his ambition, or even slow him down. I fear for a world in which men fantasize peace through such empty ideas.

#15: BO: "I fear for a world in which men fantasize peace through such empty ideas", yes, so far untill now even for the whole humanity.

1) "Empty ideas"? Purely or fundamentally "a quasi-religious-belief"? You have just admitted, "It may even be true"! Yes, I believe the "feeling" is "beyond what is knowable", and the world as we know it, could be incredibly beautiful, for someone sometimes. For us, humanity, so-called "physical realities", basically is what we could or ever been able to know. So, naturally what we feel can be "beyond what is knowable". So, the important issue is, what is "beyond what is knowable".

2) My statement, "that that is the basic 'existence', is my answer to this important issue. Our "existence" is not just mere what we know about the "physical reality", and is profoundly far more important, challenging, and basic to our "existence".

3) Do we know who and why we really are? And do we know what gods or demons ever imagined by humans really are? Do we have to accept whatever human or any other kinds of stupidity could be imagined or even created for the whole humanity to suffer(?) Could we be sure whatever could ever happen in the future because of those "nonsense"? Are we ourselves "gods or demons"? Do we really have to accept all the actual or imagined human stupitidy? Is this the only way for us?

4) I strongly believe and recommend that we grasp at this crucial human juncture, to face the true reality and nature of our human realities, by promoting aesthetics movement even for us to truely see the true condition and "existence" of us.

I wonder what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would think of all this. He would, I suppose, laugh at the idea that you can stop his ambition, or even slow him down. I fear for a world in which men fantasize peace through such empty ideas.

#16: BO: Repeat of the last comment: "What Ahmadinejad would think of this." Any further comment or your own ideas about the issue of the contemporary human conditions and realities beyond your total negation of my whole comment by stating what he would think? Please.

Neville Chamberlain thought that the way to preserve peace with Adolf Hitler was to sacrifice the Sudetenland. The World War was soon to follow.

At least Chamberlain had some reason to believe he might have been successful. But you have nothing but some quasi-religious 'feeling' that will save the world. Please tell me how this makes any sense in real-world terms.

#17: BO: "You have nothing but some quasi-religious 'feeling' that will save the world. Please tell me how this makes any sense in real-world terms."

Would you say some of the pure and sound philosophical ideas could make some sense "in real-world terms"? Beyond sciences and technologies, and all other human ideas and activities, here I am trying to find some particular "philosophical" ideas which could have real and even fundamental impact "in real-world terms". That is, of course, assuming that not all my statements here are mere "quasi-religious 'feeling'. "

Would you enlighten me with some ideas which could help me in finding out some positive ways? Yes, I agree this is not just straight and simple talk about philosophy or aesthetics, but it concern "real" issues, like world peace.

I hate to tell you the bad news, but the world is severely messed up. No philosophy is likely to fix it.

If there is a fix, at all, it will be through hard work by many statesmen.

#H1-36. BO 1001100848 : "through hard work by many statesmen".

You say,therefore, philosophy and hard work need to be necessarily combined, and also it seems, as conjugate pairs, with a minimum % of each below which, they will not be realistic. For example, if philosophy + or x work is equal to 1.0, and p can not take say values less than 0.1, or w cannot take values less than 0.3, and our aim is to reach 0.9, and the like/consequences. This instruction now i need, and i think will be useful to me.

I think most statesmen had their own philosophy, and they worked hard to realise the philosophy. eg Mahatma Gandhi. They didn't rest surprised at their valuable ideas, and did realise that instead of seeking further beauty/intelligence, it would be better to seek the beauty of realising the idea in concrete also. They allotted time to work, eventually they lost control of their own time but i think they would have retained some minimum time to occasional reinforcement of their ideas in the lightof day today demands and develoments, and they would have reached their purpose. This ergodic balancing is important.

So simple philosophy is just that, simple philosophy. We may aim for philosophy+somework to keep more relevance with the actual world.

This is because the world is a commonsense world, and philosophy is an attempt to improve it? You can improve only by mixing your small philosophy with the commonsense of the mammoth trillion population [or a better ratio]. Therefore, hard work is unavoidable. Can proceed only in stages of applied ph result to concrete result to applied ph result to concrete result to ph result to concrete result, et seq.

So we have another pair also, the best thought philosophical result, and the toned down applied version. these two shall inspire each other [but no constraint like conjugacy relation. the thing is, if you do not free time from the "best phil",you will not go to application. And contrary to what appears to the philosophising mind, there is also another part of mind which seeks the concrete surprises also?

["surprise" above = hard work result, not unexpected result?]. This means is there any relation between the unexpectibility and hardworkibility [not workibility]. The experience of the efforts required take the place of the experience of novelty? While labour and impression are not same, any impression generally would have been preceded by the whatever kind of labour that ultimately generated it, and any labour invariably generate an impression? And here is one more case to treat two objets/things as pairs [exact nature of relationship can easily be worked out later].

God help us all - I think I'll close this group.

What was that about throwing thunderbolts?

#18: Founder DH: "God help us all - I think I'll close this group", SN: "Gandhi..." Marx?

Thank you all, I'm just back from Hawaiian cruising "A Lo HAA!" But, I'm just getting real HAA love, from getting at least something from SN. But, in a hurry, I'm using brother's computer with some problems using gmail here, so it's difficult to quote SN. No, it's not just that I really HAA Gandhi. It's more importantly that the "philosophy" could mean a lot in our "real world". That is, especially if Karl Marx's "ideology" is more than just ideology, but it also had been his "philosophy"? Perhaps somewhat not entirely "correct" "philosophy"? Still could have serious "real" impact?

Karl Marx spoke nonsense. The world is more complex than Hegel imagined. No simple-minded analysis of historical trends is likely to work, especially when it is built on false premises.

ST 1012102020 : I have not read Marx, but ofcourse have seen his impact.

Marx : certainly. [Or for that matter, almost anybody?].

Does not philosophy, or represented by it's Absence, and why ideology only, the attitude, would not these ultimately boil down to "philosophy" , some 0.01 to 0.99, each percentile with a different characteristic; even from thought to action.

[I am seeming to loose faith in interpreting words as having only one meaning. Is every word [more realistically, do many words, enshrine-s the meaning of many hyponyms and hypernyms?]

Correctness or not, in the real world, if it has serious impact; the happening should be respected.

Correctness, correct happening, uncorrect happening, are all equally important; i am unwilling to concede for uncorrectness.

What is HAA?

BO 1012102048 : The world is certainly more complex than can anybody hope sufficiently explain.

But words, do they have a limited reach, beyond which their meaning begin to change and eventually may even reach the opposite meaning. More simply, that meanings can depend upon contexts. For example, false premises from a point of view, less so from a different pov, and not so in a further "distorted" pov? I am interested in the equations of growth between hyponyms and hypernyms, as well as of the equations of growth of chirality between meanings.

SN: "What is HAA?"

'Haa' is the last syllable in aloha ("A Lo HAA!"), a Hawaiian word meaning 'hello' and 'good-bye.'

http://www.to-hawaii.com/aloha.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha

Apparently, 'alo' means 'presence,' 'front' and 'face.' 'Ha' means breath. So aloha means presence of breath. The word also means love. It is used as a greeting and a farewell wish.

Hah!

#19: Naturally evolutionary products of feeling and thinking beings, from multi-universe 'existence'.

BO: "Karl Marx spoke nonsense. The world is more complex than Hegel imagined. No simple-minded analysis of historical trends is likely to work, especially when it is built on false premises."

SN: "Correctness or not, in the real world, if it has serious impact; the happening should be respected. ... are all equally important"

Yes, precisely, what I'm really trying to get at, is, as what I have stated, "the 'philosophy' could mean a lot in our 'real world' ", in addition to sciences, technologies, human systems and organizations, religions, ideologies, etc., some of which have had tremendous impact on human histories, perhaps precisely because they are related to, or built on 'philosophy'? Because the thinking beings, more or less all of us, are perhaps natural evolutionary products?

Looking and hoping for world peace, naturally I'm aiming at 'aesthetics' rather than just 'philosophy'. It could happen more or less gradually and steadily, based on our own 'instinct', inner understanding of and faith in multi-universe 'existence' and our own human wisdom, like what has been happening in Chile and its global sensation, and perhaps sensational impact. Anthropologists have pointed out that the sense of fair-play and mutual supports are naturally universal for humans and beyond humans, as they are intrinsically the nature of 'existence' in its evolution of the universes.

#H1-50: SHEH-GNI TSAI 1015100739 : "Aesthetics" : i think it is, and do you mean, by aesthetics, i think everybody means, better philosophy/or poetry or "better" whatever? ie aesthetics is, until we make the better possibility productive/functional and redundant, and the next stage better possibility of aesthetics shape, which then in turn, this et seq or ad infinitum.

Well, æsthetics is the study of beauty, something only distantly related to questions of war and peace.

#H1-50: BO 1016102222 : Can not the concerns of aesthetics/beauty include use? (in ST's case, peace).

i used to think: beauty is the first few seconds of use. Then we have to enter in to use through the shortcut of beauty. The combination of b+u of course gives a lot of inspiration, but beauty+bad is not that purely ugly? Here aesthetics is not enough. And beauty+casualness is simply routine.

Shouldn't we atleast accept b a well as b+u [function, etc], both under aesthetics?

_________________________________________________________________

ST 1015100739 : "...built on philosophy?" : i use one such generalized meaning only. You may use "philosophy" consciously or unconsciously, but all of one's ideas can actions can be traced back to his "philosophy".

"natural evolutionary products" : i dont understand exactly what is this [here].

"anthropologists....fair play and support....naturally universal for humans....intrinsically the nature of existence in it's evolution of the universe": i am interested. can you give what you consider the best anthropological and before ethological links for that? please.

#20: Aesthetics as the philosophy of beauty, able to be applied for our better evolution?

SN: "aesthetics... better philosophy/or poetry or "better whatever?"

BO: "aesthetics is the study of beauty, something only distantly related to questions of war and peace."

How is aesthetics related to philosophy? Is aesthetics the philosophy of beauty? It seems sciences have discovered lately that biological evolutions could have been happening within our lifetimes.

Could our 'natural' (under this universe's physical laws) 'evolutions' (changes/stabilities and 'realities' of that laws' universe) not beyond our thinkings, feelings, and activities? If not, then it could ever more be possible for us to strive for a better and more beautiful human worlds, in rather shorter times that not not.

#21: SN: " 'fair play and support....naturally universal for humans...' the best anthropological and before ethological links "

I am rather out-dated now on the subject. But, I have found a link for Donald E. Brown, quoted by Steven Pinker, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Brown_(anthropologist)

" Donald E. Brown is an American professor of anthropology (emeritus). He worked at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is best known for his theoretical work regarding the existence, characteristics and relevance of universals of human nature. In his best known work, Human Universals, he says these universals, "comprise those features of culture, society, language, behavior, and psyche for which there are no known exceptions." He is quoted at length by Steven Pinker in an appendix to The Blank Slate, where Pinker cites some of the hundreds of universals listed by Brown. "

From Blank slate's Amazon website, Publishers Weekly states:

" In his last outing, How the Mind Works, the author of the well-received The Language Instinct made a case for evolutionary psychology or the view that human beings have a hard-wired nature that evolved over time. This book returns to that still-controversial territory in order to shore it up in the public sphere. Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's mind is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited universal structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit with plenty of room for cultural and individual variation. "

" He goes on to tour what science currently claims to know about human nature, including its cognitive, intuitive and emotional faculties, and shows what light this research can shed on such thorny topics as gender inequality, child-rearing and modern art. Pinker's synthesizing of many fields is impressive but uneven, especially when he ventures into moral philosophy and religion; examples like "Even Hitler thought he was carrying out the will of God" violate Pinker's own principle that one should not exploit Nazism "for rhetorical clout." For the most part, however, the book is persuasive and illuminating. "

ST: "It seems sciences have discovered lately that biological evolutions could have been happening within our lifetimes."

Certainly there is evidence for micro-evolution. But the evolution of species is far from proven.

Is the human mind at conception, pre-determined to possess universal knowledge?

Certainly no one believed more so than Aristotle that human nature is 'hard wired,' so to speak. Yet he believed that one is conceived without any knowledge. Can we reconcile these views?

Obviously one can.

Take the concepts of beauty and peace. Are men hard-wired to know such things? I see no reason to believe that. On the other hand, all men are exposed to situations in which beauty and peace play major roles in their lives. For example, a baby may behold the beautiful face of his mother and feel her peaceful embrace. Some babies may not experience a mother, but all babies experiences some loving care without which they can not survive. So it is natural that a baby will develop some appreciation for such things. No specific hard-wiring is required to make it happen.

#22: BO: "Aristotle that human nature is 'hard wired,' so to speak. Yet he believed that one is conceived without any knowledge. Can we reconcile these views?" So what is the "human nature", and the nature of 'existence'?

In my understandings, biological beings in our universe, specifically around and within our earth, have come into such beings and evolved thereafter, by ways of producing somehow (DNA arrangements and their perpetuations?) experience 'memories' of realities, 'feelings' of beauties/uglinesses and peacefulnesses/terrors, and 'thinkings' of logical reasonings/illogical absurdities, and act accordingly, to avoid dangers and maximize 'benefits' or something 'good' for their own perpetuations and 'growths', AND, marching beyond individual units towards new generational units, when forced with unavoidable endings of present realities for present unit perpetuation.

This biological unitary and generational perpetuations and growths ('evolution') is the nature and hallmark of biological 'existence', it seems to me. So, 'evolutions' have to be "hard wired" to certain degrees, so to speak.

Aristotle's idea of being "conceived without any knowledge", it seems to me, is actually that the new generation units have not yet grown to the full 'adults' to be able to be aware of the whole ranges of "hard-wired" 'inborn abilities' for memories, feelings, and thinkings, and relatively easily available across-generational accumulated 'instruments for evolution'. I think, most new generation beings are evolutionary not only changed but also more advanced, than their 'parents'. So their intrinsic 'inborn abilities' are generally more advanced than their parents, based on their parents' added memories-taught and accumulated abilities. So perhaps, one can say babies are "conceived without any knowledge", but certainly 'with added evolutionary advantages', and added 'inborn abilities' for knowledge and all others.

For example, the universal tendencies for maintaining certain degrees of fair-play and mutual helpings 'principles' for most humans and human groups and beyond humans to animals, are "hard-wired" as the intrinsic natural products of the nature of natural selection 'principles' of natural evolution, I assume. That is the biological nature.

And, based on this biological nature, form its very inception, our aesthetic and world peace movements' resounding eventual successes are unavoidable, it seems to me. That is the nature of 'existence', I hope!

"Would it be ever possible to change the human ways to save ourselves? From this dynamic group?"

I just noticed the implication of this. Yes, we can save ourselves from this dynamic group, either individually (by leaving it) or collectively (by deleting it). And I am Dr Strangelove...

#H1-52A : ST 1017100730 : Really thanks for the link to the "hardwired" Human Universals Brown's list. Really i am in need of this knowledge to go in to my rudimentary ideas further.

I want to wonder; especially if hardwired, then these universals can become part of existents, that is, reifiabilities? [actually,to be fair to you, i should further read and then only come back; any way let me risk pristininty!]. That is or Or, these become part of "truth", in so far as demographicals/ statistical probabilities can be conferred/ascribed the status of 'approximate truths". In that case, since the human (or living beings or life) universals, can be treated as equal to [extended?] commonsense. Then, can they be extrapolated to become part of logic, atleast we may call this bio-logic, or to be less confusing, say, biogenised logic?

I have culled a minor list from the Brown List, the HU that interest me:

1. beauty, reflexivity, anticipation, conjectural reasoning, unilinear ordering, culture, entification, fairness, hope, intention, narrative, overestimating objectivity of thought, tenses, planning for action, rhythm, self is responsible, world view.

2. affection, attachment, conjectural reasoning, co-operation/support, culture, chores, leading, explanation, family, hospitality, hygienic care, food, socialization.

However, some of the concepts, i have changed to suit my variations.

If the above are features "for which there are no known exceptions", then these approach us as existent truths? [by 'truth", do i overlap here with "objects" visible or invisible?]. whatever, as usual, i say i can derive "justification" for these "features", on the basis of probability of finding them over a demography/ensemble/population is "nearly every where", and they are not figments only of my imagination.

[Now,i shall go to read further, and if any changes/corrections to be made, i shall report back. [but,i am seeming to make this thread a vehicle for my learning. But if i thus will be wasting beter educated people's time, please condone.]

#H1-53 : ST 1017100325: beauty need not be restricted only to visual or other sensual form, or only to those that appeal to mind due to their elegant flow of thought, etc. i think it includes, the the quantity and separately the quality of purposeful work [purpose here i loosely define, to include short term use too),, the hard work that went behind the creation of some socially useful engineering, nay any sequence of action that consumed hardwork and resulted in some desirable/useful/respectable output, etc.

What is the beauty of content. Form/content/function that are "bad [ie sans responsibility]", however beautiful, immediately get transformed to that much ugly/repelling in my thought.

Now coming to "better and beautiful human worlds" : I don't know if you are using the word to mean only visual/aural etc beauty, or if you include concepts/ideas that illuminate the mind. I think, we need to necessarily add the other less widely used beauty of the routine hardwork also. This is necessary for generation of beyond-ordinary use, and unless the effort, not merely the result, is also added to our concept of beauty, i think it is not the practical way to hope beauty to contribute to real-life betterment. I don't think here i am arbitrarily and prejudicially trying to expand the range of beauty, and am trying to infuse in to the word non-existing concerns. I think such expansion of the content of the word, is the only way the concept will not stagnate, and it's potential will not get stunted.

"whether we can think and thereby influence evolution?" : May be.

"think and thereby see physical laws are not beyond our thinkings, feelings, activities?: Physical laws? I doubt. In our culture, even God cannot go against physical laws, or atleast against fairness. The last thing God can do is miracle, if that means violating a physical law. Physics or ethics, usually no one has the power to violate, while within an "understood" realm; if we hadn't understood, anything in the "un-understood" realm will appear as "miracle".

Now i am questioning myself, why i had ruled out that miracles are possible. Why not some thing with a picoprobability materialise? There is nothing against it. I feel probably i think that miracles usually seek to be extra-physical or extra-biological, both i feel are non-existing as far as our common frame of reference is concerned. If they are existing in the FoR of some far away world, that i am not concerned/ cannot know. What we usually experience [with the best of our minds], i feel the purview of our laws is within that only. And within that, the laws are inviolable even by their creator.

I think i am getting more clarity now: whatever laws cannot be violated by the humans, they cannot be violated by God also. The minutest Respect to order/law is more important than the grandest omnipotence. Am i being unrealistic vis-a-vis God? I doubt if He would intend so. {here, God is a concept, not necessarily a person, or there is no difference between both in the idea of G?.

Please don't think i am digressing. I do believe all these are relevantly part of the considerations we have of beauty.

isn't it socrates who siad that pleseare and pain are two poles of the same being?

there is no way to talk about absolute peace since necessity and competition among animals that we are require that there is both peace and war alternatively. even if we end war among fellow humans today,we still fight against other animal species hence they like us all animals can not have peace totally.

#25: Is mathematics part of logics logically? And, do logics and mathematics evolve beyond physical realities? If so, are they still always physically relevant there (beyond p.r.), like some very complex mathematical equations representing physical realities?

jCK: "all animals can not have peace totally."

SN: "what are 'multi-universes' wht are they required in non-imaginary realms? How our "universe" would not contain the non-our u manifestations?"

"Why is the clamour to go "beyond" the universe? And could our mental activities can go beyond the u? If there is non-our physics-es, will that be really possible for us to transmigrate to there? What exchange/conversion would be required?"

" "universe-restricted" : is that really possible for us to identify a "universe unrestricted" anything? Have any other universe has been conceptualised mathematics and physics? any prose description possible please? "

My undergraduate philosophy professor said the best philosophy in India and mysticism Tibet. Are jCK originally from India? I would like to have less any kinds of wars among humans at least first. Why peace and not beautiful fires, which could be the basic nature of our universe?

" Why is the clamor to go "beyond" the universe? And could our mental activities can go beyond the u? " For me personally, my 'clamor' is in order to understand the nature and meaning of my own 'existence', by following Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design idea of the reality, as stated in Amazon:

"according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature."

And by understanding the very nature of our "existence" promote human understandings of our own nature for a better world of peace.

#H1-81. SgT 1028100823 : "I would like to have less any kinds of wars among humans at least first."

YES.

all else can wait.

Logic is a model or representation of the structure and the patterns of implication of natural language. Formal logic evacuates content by the introduction of algebraic variables. Mathematics relies on formal logic for its formulation and its axiomisation.

None of this suggests that we should reify logic.

DH: "None of this suggests that we should reify logic."

I don't know, David... Many men stub their toes on logic.

#28. Concrete vs. Abstract knowledge, and the Universe we experience Concretely vs. the Multiverse (Stephen Hawking on The Grand Design, Amazon) SH knows Abstractly:

Abstract Logic of our knowledge, and our feelings, and all means of communications necessary for our actions from our memories and much more often, reach beyond our Concrete Experience.

Still, math equipped with reality representations with very complex equations sometimes, could it go beyond the reality by itself? Like languages, but perhaps with some significant real meanings?

'Stephen Hawking Asks, What Is Reality?', Time's book excerpt: http://tinyurl.com/SH-GrandDdesign Friday, Sep. 10, 2010: "There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

Though realism may be a tempting viewpoint, what we know about modern physics makes it a difficult one to defend. For example, according to the principles of quantum physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer. In fact, in some cases individual objects don't even have an independent existence but rather exist only as part of an ensemble of many."

'A Mixed Reality Approach for Merging Abstract and Concrete Knowledge': http://tinyurl.com/VR08-3-8IEEE: "MR [Mixed reality's (MR) ability] can help users bridge their abstract and concrete knowledge, thereby improving their knowledge transfer into real world domains."

BO

ST: ""No philosophical theory based on axioms, can ever capture the completeness of the human experience."

I believe the quote should be attributed to Graeme Smith, and not to me.

I might sympathize with Graeme's statement, except that I am not sure what he really meant by it... it seems to be the sort of statement which I would not make... too vague to be truly meaningful.

As I recall, Graeme was arguing from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems in a way which seemed invalid to me.

Certainly no philosophical theory that I know of can tell me whether it is raining or not. The way I determine the answer to that question is by looking outside... not by studying Aristotle.

#H1-87. BO 1105100044 : Is there a chance, how much near we can come to study questions of the nature implied in your below quoted statement. I want to substitute neither observation nor meteorology, but is some thing between these and philosophy and logic? What's it's name? How far it goes?

"Certainly no philosophical theory that I know of can tell me whether it is raining or not. The way I determine the answer to that question is by looking outside... not by studying Aristotle."

Can the question be rephrased like: is there some useful abstract state [some saddle point which promises useful application] in between meteorology and logic?

science and logic? [if meteorology or science could not be abstracted enough to become part of logic].

#H1-88. SgT 1104100447 : [i understand what is fundamental,, etc., but is there any reason origin/fundamental is more important/fundamental than present-state-of-existence?

Why is it not that the sustaining state of the world is more complex

[therefore more fundamental!] [assuming creation had been "easier", ["easy"], than the "present useful" state of the world]

than the creation/origin?

More simply, how "dynamics" can not be "God the creation" and only cosmology can be?

what, if there is?, difference between creation of matter, and the daily processes matter exhibits?

_______

dynamics: word above, borrowed from:

Hans van Leunen 1030100025.THREAD: big bang theory and my stupid confused mind.

According to Aristotle there are three degrees of abstraction...

http://socyberty.com/philosophy/abstraction-in-aristotle-and-aquinas/7/

"The first degree is where the intellect abstracts the species of natural things from the sensible individual matter, not from sensible matter in general. It abstracts the species of man from this flesh and these bones, not from flesh and bones in general. “This is way is found in the sciences of nature and it is common to all sciences; for every science considers what is essential while it does not consider what is accidental”[26] to sensible matters.

"In the second degree, the intellect comprehends mathematical essences by abstracting from all sensible matter, both individual and in general. It also abstracts from intelligible matter, but only from the individual, not from intelligible matter in general. In this instance, intelligible matter is substance, inasmuch as it underlies quantity. But the intellect is able to lift the absolute nature of quantity from sensible matter, and comprehend it as a universal concept in its essential element and in the essential laws of being. At this level of abstraction, we acquire mathematical knowledge (e.g. geometrical figure).

"The highest form of abstraction is metaphysical abstraction. In it the intellect leaves behind even intelligible matter in general and forms concepts like being, unity, potency and act, which attain actualization without any matter in the region of immaterial substances. Through this process, the mind operates by uniting and dividing, and this is found in Metaphysics. In other words, the knowledge derived here is a metaphysical knowledge."

#29: BO: Aristotle's 3 degrees of abstraction: scientific, mathematical, and metaphysical knowledge.

Applied to aesthetics: Empirical aesthetics, Neuroesthetics, and Beauty as Truth'esthetics?

Or Neuroesthetics is just a branch of Empirical aesthetics more suited for advancement to mathematical knowledge? Wikipedia: " Neuroesthetics received its formal definition in 2002 as the scientific study of the neural bases for the contemplation and creation of a work of art.[1] Neuroesthetics uses the techniques of neuroscience in order to explain and understand the aesthetic experiences at the neurological level."

Beauty as Truth, could be a way to meta. know. of aesthetics? Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_aesthetics

"Cognitive science has also considered aesthetics, with the advent of neuroesthetics, pioneered by Semir Zeki, which seeks to explain the prominence of great art as an embodiment of biological principles of the brain, namely that great works of art capture the essence of things just as vision and the brain capture the essentials of the world from the ever-changing stream of sensory input."

Also Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#cite_note-54

"Aesthetic considerations such as symmetry and simplicity are used in areas of philosophy, such as ethics and theoretical physics and cosmology to define truth, outside of empirical considerations. Beauty and Truth have been argued to be nearly synonymous,[54]"

#H1-96. Thanks to BO Nov 5, 2010 11:58 pm and SgT Nov 13, 2010 7:13 am.

@*. I tried through the links you provided, as well as further through Google. I did not exactly got what i want, but got the following: Bruce Schuman/Hierarchy of ideas; again BS/Theory of Concepts; ActionDesign.com write-up/Ladder of Inference.

Is any link for getting responsibility/goodness concepts/behavior heirarchically stacked?