It is unclear how the comprehension of language could be the same for people who think in language vs those who do not. How do they know what words mean if words do not correspond to their thoughts?
Consciousness has created life for a purpose: to perfect itself. Are you perfecting consciousness, or are you chasing dead ends?
I used to be a very sociable animal when my ideas of self, truth and reality were as incoherent as those of others. As these ideas were reflected on and progressively revised, meaningful communication became impossible beyond transactional conventions, as if we were no longer in the same world. It is impossible to maintain reflexive (social) relations with anything that is recognised as incoherent, without harming oneself. They became profane, toxic. I also realised that they cannot be helped by direct intervention.
👍2
Social relations among the profane are purely transactional, not generative. Their empathy, compassion, humour, criticism, advise, bonding.... is a trade. Cops, politicians, public speakers, authors, media personalities are highly trained in transactional dynamics. Their audience accepts the deal.
You have a face, but the face is not identity. You have DNA, but DNA is not identity. Reflexive consciousness is identity, an ‘I’.
👍3
The law cannot be consistently ‘made’ or ‘legislated’ by anyone. The law can only be proven, derived from fundamental principles. The law is built into being. Lawmaking is contrary to the law.
‘Truth’ is a vague, meta-logical concept; it is not, and never was, a theorem.
Multi-valued logics are based on the equivocation between ‘specific-contingency vs the negation of specific-contingency’ and contingency vs necessity in general. In the classical example, the statement that asserts necessity “A sea battle will be fought tomorrow” is interpreted as TRUE for the contingency that a sea battle is fought tomorrow, but these are not equivalent: a statement of necessity (P→Q) is not validated by any contingency (Q). This is a classical fallacy ‘of the converse’! A consistent interpretation is that the statement is FALSE (or better, Non-Sense), because it asserts logical necessity (P→Q) for something that is not logically necessary: ¬(P→Q). Similarly, “A sea battle will NOT be fought tomorrow” (P→¬Q) would also be Non-Sense but it is not the opposite of ¬(P→Q). The internal negation attaches to a specific contingency (Q), replacing it with another contingency (not-Q), which is not equivalent to a negation of necessity/implication. Converting the implication to conjunction, ¬(P and Q) is obviously not the opposite of (P and ¬Q): the forms are mutually consistent. In essence, statement about necessity (P→Q) are necessarily bivalent, and statements about contingency (Q or ¬Q) are necessarily bivalent, but statements about necessity are not equivalent or opposite or interchangeable with statements about contingency. Colloquial confounding of the two types gave rise to non-sense, such as multi-valued logics. The image is from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/
Hypothesis. Meaning (therefore being/reality) is not possible without the concept of gravity, because gravity is an essential property of ‘context’ or ‘situation’, which are in turn essential properties of consciousness. ON this view, gravity orients things with respect to one another, in a continuous relation. Without gravity (or equivalent, universal ‘force’) things would lack mutual orientation, absolutely alienated at any distance. Gravity is then a property of narrative integration of being; a presupposition of ‘being in the same world’ and being ‘in time’.