Archetypes, Essentialism, and Nominalism
Jul 29, 2018 22:02:17 GMT -5 by jelle
via mobile
Auburn, Alerith, and 2 more like this
Post by jelle on Jul 29, 2018 22:02:17 GMT -5
WARNING: This excerpt is inconsistently and poorly formatted, and the poster is apologetic in advance.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
@jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I) i've had this thought recently that myths and archetypes don't exist separated from actual individuals. that is to say, in some sense the archetypal 'feminine' is the extrapolated nexus of all female qualities. but a single female is, in a sense, the archetype too. because the archetype is extracted from her. it's a bottom-up approach.
when i look at things in this fashion, i see that 'mythical' figures exist in our day and age, as actual people
for example, Trump is the King/Dark-Father, and that's not just figuratively... but quite literally, since the myth is extracted from individuals like him
Marilyn Monroe is anima
etc
most notably for me, i find Jordan Peterson to be the Father archetype
there is something Jung said in the Red Book
x-traonline.org/build/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/13_4_Jung_Featured.jpg
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
dark vs light father: "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them" vs. "Good micro routine adaptation there, chum"
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
^ Philemon was an archetype in Jung, and the insription here says:
“Whenever there is a decline of the law and ‘an increase in iniquity; then I put forth myself For
the rescue of the pious and for the destruction of the evildoers, for the establishment of the law I am born in every age.”
"I am born in every age" <--- is really, physically, literally true.
because the Fe+Ni father archetype gets re-born in every age. Peterson is just one example in modern times
Peterson is one Philemon figure presently on the world stage to balance things
that's not to say every FeNi would embody Philemon, ...more generally i think Je-leads would, but certainly Jung's version was Beta due to his psychology.
Carl Jung was NiFe ll--, so I think his Fe was Philemon. That's just a tentative guess
Phibious07/22/2018
“Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)
i've had this thought recently that myths and archetypes don't exist separated from actual individuals. that is to say, in some sense the archetypal 'feminine' is the extrapolated nexus of all female qualities. but a single female is, in a sense, the archetype too. because the archetype is extracted from her. it's a bottom-up approach.
when i look at things in this fashion, i see that 'mythical' figures exist in our day and age, as actual people
for example, Trump is the King/Dark-Father, and that's not just figuratively... but quite literally, since the myth is extracted from individuals like him”
This view of archetypes links to a particular model of how deep structure and general order of reality work. It's related to nominalism and formalism.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
googles nominalism(edited)
yes, i would say that describes me!
i came to this place through a round of deconstructions some years ago. i think my Ti turned on itself and saw the folly of reliance on abstract universals when language is a convenient human invention to help us categorize the world. there are no essences save for those which can be extrapolated out of common themes and thought of as abstract generalizations, rather than quintessential properties.
perhaps the exception to this may be in mathematics, though.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
NO ESSENTIALISM IS CORRECT
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
and geometry.
i'll fite u jelle!
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
HOW CAN YOU FIGHT ME WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE LINGUISTIC CONVENTION THAT ISNT EVEN REAL
I’m jk
Phibious07/22/2018
I did mean formalism[mathematics], so you may not agree with that part then.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I’ve been thinking about essentialism and nominalism a lot lately
And how it relates to functions
Seems there’s a bit a pattern possibly somewhere but I’m not sure yet because my initial hypothesis was disrupted by some cases that didn’t align so
But there’s definitely something there
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
mathematics is tricky to me because it seems like a beautiful, essential language, ...to which any content conforms to.
so it seems to me to be more fundamental than the things themselves
i can only see mathematics (as we know them) being non-essential if they happen to be situationally created by our present universal laws, and in others laws, other mathematics would be different
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Some people believe that
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
but as far as i can tell, mathematics would transcend even other universes, right? ...in what existence wouldn't 1+1=2, for instance
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
It’s a nontrivial philosophical problem
I don’t have a good answer really. I may have thought I did a couple of months ago but refuted myself so
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
interesting. i think at least, practically speaking, we kinda have to operate as though they're essential, since we can't escape this universe ;p
.
.
.
Phibious07/22/2018
re: morals,
Morals must hinge on how the essential is arranged.
Since it is the accidental that is really subject to the is/ought gap.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
You think the essential is arranged and relational?
Phibious07/22/2018
...yes?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I always thought of essence in terms of individuals (philosophical individuals, so the arrangement/relations are contingent). Not saying I’m right. This is way to heavy a topic to just say that. But that’s my natural inclination
Interesting
Relata or relations
Where is essence
Idk tbh
I’ve been thinking about it a lot and it’s very intractable
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think 'essence' is our left hemisphere wanting to 'grasp' things by use of labels and form
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I don’t know how left brained i am.
Phibious07/22/2018
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l) - Today at 12:57 AM
i think 'essence' is our left hemisphere wanting to 'grasp' things by use of labels and form
I was trying to write about this the whole time.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Ouuu share share
Phibious07/22/2018
Throw a ball and it follows a parabola, which matches a certain multivariable quadratic equation. Does it make sense to say that the ball is calculating a quadratic equation in order to know where to land? Not quite. The ball does give the right answer, i.e. the landing location will correctly fit the equation set up by the starting velocity. But it's more accurate to say that the ball embodies a process that matches some equation, rather than saying the ball calculates its own landing position.
Now suppose I want to reliably predict where a ball will land. I could learn the equations and crunch numbers, but I could instead find some superficially different system that happens to be analogous, i.e. embodies the same set of quadratic equations, and use that to give me the right answers, doing non-calculation just like the ball itself is doing non-calculation.
It's sort of strange that this would even work when there's no hard connection between the two things, the ball's arc exactly matches this other random physical system that probably isn't even parabola shaped but is analogous anyway.
1
Phibious07/22/2018
Most people can look at the trajectory and know very closely where a ball will land, or throw it with the exact right starting velocity to land in a particular place. It's possible that their brains are quickly calculating through subconscious quadratic equations generalized from past experience of projectiles in order to know where to throw the ball. But wouldn't it be faster and easier to do it by running some easy process that embodies the same abstract pattern as the one embodied by the ball, not-calculating it in the same way the ball itself is not-calculating it? Keep in mind that almost nobody can solve y = ax^2 + bx + c before a ball hits the ground, and that not being able to solve quadratic equations formally does not impede your ability to throw a ball in any way.(edited)
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
^ lots of cool stuff here. as this pertains to essences, this is part of why i feel that the universe only ever calculates one micro-bit at a time. there isn't a cosmic quadratic equation being run every time a ball is thrown, but instead an infinite number of quark computations are going on every second.... and it so happens that the net result of that looks like a given parabola.... in the same way that Newtonian physics "works" in a simplistic way to calculate planetary motions even though it breaks down/fails when harder physics are at play (re: three body problem, iirc).
we think the equations are "true" only until we realize they're estimations, or "net results"... when we find a deeper reality beneath them
that's why i think the universe may lack essential properties of that sort, because anything we know --in the physics sense-- may end up being a net effect rather than a fundamental thing.
1
1
Phibious07/22/2018
^^ I wasn't expecting this direction at all.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
oh wait, maybe i totally misunderstood your point
Phibious07/22/2018
No I think you did, it's just a surprising interpretation of things.
(edited)
Why do you think it is that each quark behaves the same way as other quarks of the same type?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think physics is built from the bottom up, so that macro-laws are "emergent properties" ...the same way chemistry is an emergent property of atoms.
hmm, i don't know too much about quantum physics honestly, but i do wonder if they're all identical
Phibious07/22/2018
Okay let's just suppose all quarks are identical. Why should they behave the same way?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i'm not sure in what sense 'behave' is used here... but i think it's because of what they are. their behavior likely is rooted in their geometry/shape/form.
quarks don't follow laws, ...quarks create laws by how their geometry interacts with other things
and "laws" are just typical effects of clashes or interactions
Phibious07/22/2018
Don't quarks follow the laws of geometry, then?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
yes, i think geometry and math are likely essential-- if anything is.
math/geometry creates physics, imo
and physics is an emergent property, probably
...although geometry may be subservient to spacetime
if we can imagine a non-spacetime universe
but i'm way out of my depths here now
i'm a noob
.
.
.
.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i once came up with a back-of-the-napkin theory on how geometry might emerge from math and just 1 principle. giving rise to spacetime
I can definitely see the potential for a model like that, it's the sort of thing I wonder about too.
But it's funny because that's the type of thinking that changed my view on essences and the like.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
the principle went something like this:
before anything/time/etc... there was "1". the number 2 didn't exist. because there was singularity.
and i mean this in a physical sense. there cannot be 2 if there is only one place anything can be. as soon as this singularity was broken, space was made because it means there was two separate locations. but the way this happened was because of one principle:
- - - two things cannot be in the same place at once.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
What was your view before Phibs and how did that change it
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
even if they're really packed together like in black holes... they're not literally in the same spacetime position. that's impossible
this impossibility forced it to go "elsehwere"
but there was no "elsewhere" in the singularity
and so a new dimension was created for this to exist
the impossibility of two-things-in-the-same-space gave rise to the second dimension, so-to-speak. and also distance.
it baffles my mind to think that before there was a second dimension, one could imagine existence being elsewhere (or in two places). we take it for granted now but it's not a trivial problem.
Phibious07/22/2018
I should say 'sold me on essences' rather than 'changed my view' because I wasn't all that solidified in my related thinking beforehand.(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
You can still do the math to space derivation, because you can start with math and derive four cleverly dependent real lines. Space just is four cleverly dependent real lines. QED.(edited)
.
.
.
So, with geometry and essences.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
hmm. interesting. what model proposes this i wonder? i'd love to see a math-derived universe theory
(in my pleb mind i try to answer the fundamental question of how did something come out of nothing. like, actual "nothing" ....and the things i come to are that math and geometry had to be established somehow first, before anything)
Phibious07/22/2018
There's nothing more at all. It's an extremely simplistic and unsatisfying way to make the connection that sort of gestures at what I was about to get into.
I don't think your parenthesis thing is wrong, in that geometry is not temporal.
But say we do what we were doing before, and take some object and ask 'what is this really?' and get a deeper explanation, many times over, and eventually we get to the lowest physics level.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
how do you guys think math/geometry came to be?
Phibious07/22/2018
I think it did not come to be, it is not temporal. You can derive it all merely by avoiding contradictions over and over.
So it would be a contradiction for it to not "exist".
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Dats very truuuue
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
agghh, but then we enter the problem of First Cause and all that. or...
who put the geometry there.
or existence
Phibious07/22/2018
What exactly is the problem?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
"i think it did not come to be" -- i'm curious how we can explain something like this. do you mean it was always there?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I want to blurt out seemingly irrelevant things about monads and qualia but I’m listening
Keeping my mouth shut is hard man
Phibious07/22/2018
Almost. It is timeless, which is different from always having been there. "Who put the geometry there?" isn't like asking "Who put Earth here?". Putting it there is in a sense the same as not actively introducing fundamental contradictions into reality.
"Who failed to actively introduce fundamental contradictions into reality?"
Uhh, nobody, I guess?
Everybody?
Does not compute?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Sheldrake’s favourite question
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i see, the question is moot
what does "timeless" mean? and how is it different from always having been there?
Phibious07/22/2018
Always having been there is the same as any other time thing except it happened to start at the start of the universe and hasn't gone away yet.
Timeless emphasizes that time-related questions fundamentally do not make sense to apply to it, i.e. 'who put geometry there?'
You can't become timeless just by being really old.
In fact, nothing can become timeless because if it were 'become' wouldn't make sense.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i'm kinda getting it, but i'm a bit confused. timeless has no origin... so there is no 'when' or beginning. right.
Phibious07/22/2018
Right.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think that's the same as saying it's essential, eternal, and irrevocable.
Phibious07/22/2018
Hmm, it might be.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
or at least i'm trying to make sense of it outside of wordgames
since it seems like we're just circling different phrasings
what does it mean for something to 'be' without ever having a point of origin? (i.e. timeless)(edited)
it would mean that it's an irrevocable and fundamental property of all-that-every-can-be-or-is, right?(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
Yeah, I think it would.
That makes sense.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Dat how monads are
1
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i was googling monads just now Jellz. wow
the Pythagoreans, who called the first thing that came into existence the "monad", which begat (bore) the dyad (from the Greek word for two), which begat the numbers, which begat the point, begetting lines or finiteness, etc.
(edited)
^ omg i was almost saying this very thing earlier
the singular broke into the dual, then created distance/etc
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
The thing about monads is. It’s not just about math and geometry. Ontological plenitude means qualia are also essential
Phibious07/22/2018
But so say we are at the lowest level of physics, and we ask one more time, 'what is this really?' we get a math/geometry answer, right?
And suppose you're trying to understand something, and you really get it exactly, what's the broken-down fundamental geometry view of your brain thinking about this going to look like? It's going to have some aspect that is the same as what you're thinking about.
Not similar, literally the exact same, math does not contain multiple separate instances of 'circle at the origin of radius 2'.
So in this moment, aren't you understanding through apprehension of essences?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
hm... essences are how i apprehend things, since i'm a limited organism with limited bandwidth and i can only do so by generalizing reality ;p
but it doesn't prove essences exist
Phibious07/22/2018
What do you think an essence is then?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
unquestionable limits to deeper nuance
to say something is "essential" ...seems to me like a cop-out and stopping the investigation right there(edited)
in that sense i do dislike the word, in a way
especially since my view is that ...that sort of thinking.... is created by the simplifying process of our brains
so humans think in terms of essences.
but it's very human-centric to build a worldview that way
Phibious07/22/2018
Okay, but you are on board with breaking down physical objects into mathematical patterns.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
yes
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Okay wait can we all define essence quickly
Phibious07/22/2018
sure
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
ok phibs, how do u define it
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
To me an essence is a property that if you take away that property from a thing it is no longer that thing. Hence it is essential to the existence of that thing.
Phibious07/22/2018
^^ I was just typing that.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
ah.... i guess i don't think in terms of 'things' being real, that way either
well, to me there's human-real, then there's really real
Phibious07/22/2018
Only really real is what real ever meant.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
lol
human-real = that's a plant
real-real = "i'm pointing to a collection of atoms which i can't properly differentiate with the soil at some level... and which i have to use a conceptual schema to approximate into something usable (re: mental object)"
humans think in terms of mental objects
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Why can’t everything be real
I want my ontological plenitude
I want my metaphysical realism
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
well, mental objects are real in the sense that our consciousness is part of existence...
but it's more like a metaphor
our consciousness is not actuality, its a proxy(edited)
created in order to help us not get eaten by animals
mental objects = low-resolution approximations of reality-patterns, or what sheldrake calls "habits" (if im using that properly)
Phibious07/22/2018
I think worrying about the exact differentiation of objects is a red herring.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Metaphor is real. Isomorphisms exist outside of my knowing they exist. It exists even if all humans and living things die probably(edited)
The universe is metaphorical
Metaphor is real too
Everything is real
Phibious07/22/2018
This comes from using a model of the mind where it does detached modeling of things it observes.
So that version is observations go in and the mind fits them into its own categories and patterns and refines that over time.
But the observed things and the mind are both running off the same laws. The patterns that the world runs on are already the patterns that your mind was made out of. You get free information about what you're modeling, since you and the world are locked into the same very broad, but highly self-similar class of behaviors.(edited)
You can't not use this free information, it's built in at a fundamental level.
This is an automatic consequence of breaking everything down into the same Big Capitalized Universal Law.
Even if you dodge it through several levels of particle physics.
You can calculate back up the chain and make that simple parabola real again.
If you couldn't, the ball would not travel in a parabola.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I don’t even know how to think of essence and related things in terms of up and down but I’m spatially and temporally retarted it seems
Or like a “this comes out of this” sort of way
Se/Ni problems I guess. Or just low IQ problems lol
I have a primitive crossmodal brain
That’s why I doubt I’m “left brained” or that’s where my essentialism comes from (which is where the convo started)
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
well going back to an earlier topic, i was discussing how i think actual people are, in some sense, singular instances of archetypes, since archetypes are the decentralized patterns extracted from those people themselves.
I think Jung thought about it the other way around
(this relates to the convo i was having with phibs)
Jung tended to think that the archetypes were essential, and that people were proxies of them, or channels for them.
i find it more enriching too, to see the archetypes as created by us ...by our collective embodiment of emergent principles.(edited)
rather than seeing them as something outside of us or higher than us which we cannot truly ever encapsulate.
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
right
I imagine they are both
always becoming yet always elusive(edited)
1
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
probably, yeah
there is also a beauty when a person embodies an archetype as fully as they can
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
a sort of symmetry or resonnance per se
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I think in their most bare form they are everywhere all the time. Before us, in us, outside of us, reproduced by us, embodied, etc. Just isomorphism unfolding and layers of synchronicity everywhere
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
do you feel called to embody anything, heresy?
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
hmm
idk if it makes sense, but I want to become more human by becoming more alien
which is basically individuation, perhaps
but not alieness as a reaction but moreso as an organic occurance
with the intention of communing eventually, with something. whether that be people, or god, or w/e
seperation, then "harmony" in some sense
which sounds pretty much human to me
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But wrt to Jung’s essentialism. I also think essence must precede existence
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
dont know if theres any archetype for such a general thing
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But that’s dependent on a certain view of essence and existence and thingness
As we pointed out earlier
Phibious07/22/2018
Nah, I probably should have gone to sleep but I am still here.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
man! we're all night owls
corvo07/22/2018
Yay
Phibious07/22/2018
I think it depends on allowing or disallowing idea-stuff to exist, just sort of as an axiom.
1
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l) - Today at 3:51 AM
i was hoping the convo would go into the direction of God but it just lingered around it...
I think there is also a degree of disallowing a broad swath of stuff when ditching God.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Yeah it takes a lot more work to deny God
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
@hairy C | FeSi (I-II) the one thing that comes to mind is Christ, who is non-human (alien)....yet "the most human"
is that sortof what you feel, maybe?(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
Like it lingered around God largely during 'how did math come to exist?'.(edited)
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
I don't see a direct correlation between myself and christ. my endeavour as it stands is certainly more ego driven(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
You worried about First Cause problems related to that.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think God can exist if you allow idea-stuff to exist, as a sort of axiom
since he's kindof the apex of that
essence-less = godless, perhaps?
Phibious07/22/2018
Drastic measures.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Okay this is annoyingly Ti but how do you all relate this to meaning and the meaning of meaning
Essence that is
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
if abstractions are to be real, then that allows for synchronicity to have a place, as well as concepts and Laws. and God becomes, i think, probably an inescapable conclusion as you chase the problem further back...(edited)
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Synchronicity to me is as obvious as causality. I sort of think causality is a subset and kind of synchronicity which might be weird to you guys I know
I am weird
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
shush gurl
Phibious07/22/2018
I'm bothered by tracing physics back to geometry if you don't accept abstractions and laws as real.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
hmm, i'm honestly on board with you guys on most everything. I dunno why i seem like such a dry materialist/empiricist when I actually aim to explain it. It's bizarre. i feel like Windows running Ubuntu.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Lol
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
I'm just sitting here like "either I need to be able to feel the essence of things or it doesn't fucking exist"
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Honestly I feel the same way but opposite. Like I sound so not materialist when I really am
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
it took me over an hour.. but i finally just caught up with this conversation
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Lol time flies when I chat in here
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
welcome back to the circus
2
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
ty ^^
can't blame you for getting absorbed Jelle! this has been a great convo, sooo much inspiring content
there's a lot i would've responded to in real-time, but the moment's passed..
one thing i wanted to say tho, on the topic of essentialism vs nominalism:
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
if the archetypes were essential, then wouldn't it be that they had to exist before humanity came into being? what makes more sense is along the lines of what Aub is saying, that they came after the existence of human beings, and emerged from our experience and observation over time. what are we experiencing and observing? literal individual people and their manifest traits. so individuals are the source of our created abstraction, the Archetypes. but to this I would add, like @hairy C | FeSi (I-II) was saying, that as we conceptualized the archetypes, we perpetuated and amplified the realities of our natures which already existed, by relating to them as animals relate to instincts; as a guide for behavior that aides survival.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I think the archetypes-as-such are essential properties of the universe
So yes
They did exist before us(edited)
The myths and stuff are just contingent on humans sure
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
but how does that work, when they manifest as embodiements of human nature and things which are relevant to humans specifically?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But there’s a deep structure that I think is timeless
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
i see
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I wrote about this once
In the thing I wrote about Spinoza fixing Jung’s shoddy metaphysics
It’s on the forum
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i can get behind this... if we say for example that the male/female archetypal divide is a manifestation of a more fundamental yin/yang axiom of existence, etc. if that's what you mean?
but at the same time i think it does matter that "archetype" relates specifically to the human content and human drama.
it can't be reduced down that way
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
even deeper than that, the ouroboros is an archetype which symbolizes the extra-human phenomenon of how order is destabilized into entropy, from which emerges order, etc.
but i think that the archetypes cover a wide range of topics, because they are the result of mankinds observation of the world around them over aeons.
corvo07/22/2018
I disagree with some of this....
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Even more fundamental than that. Those are both dualities
corvo07/22/2018
...But carry on..
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Very basic stuff
corvo07/22/2018
Yep
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
That’s why I always say archetype as such
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--) - right. and that relates to entropy/syntropy, i think.
but again, i think there are concepts in archetypes that are not reducible down. for example, women's hips being alluring, and red lips. the archetypal Anima has these qualities in her that are directly related to our evolution and aren't part of fundamental laws. it does us no good to talk about the Anima archetype without those specific human-contingent qualities. because then we're just talking about something else.
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
>Essentialism: all of us are humans because we have characteristics typical of humanity
>Nominalism: all of us are individuals who happen to be categorized as humans due to arbitrarily selected commonailities
it seems like the preference for nominalism would emerge out of a radical epistemological skepticism, of a humean/kantian sort. the idea that all knowing is only based on modelling of perceptions, which cant get at the essence of a thing. related to the problem of causality in hume, ie all we see is constant conjunctions of certain sets of sensory data then we assume causality links them. making a logically unreasonable jump from statistics into ontology. direct archetypal encounters within the human psyche, on the other hand, seem to provide a non-sensorily mediated comprehension of the deep ontology of an objective morphogenetic process
therefore it seems very tied to questions of epistemology, and what possible modes of knowledge we subscribe to as possible
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Very much so
What would you say you guys are
Neither?
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
im an essentialist
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I just don’t see how we can ontology and existence at all without things having essential properties that constitute their thingness
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
ive had way too many encounters with apparently objective morphogenetic forces to think anything else is reasonable
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
That just seems like analytic truth to me
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
there are no other appropriate explanatory principles with which i can explain such experience
there are clear ontological 'nodes' in reality to me
generative principles differentiated from but interrelated with each other
a generative principle which is transcendent/eternal and which finds form within time
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I also advocate ontological plenitude a la Spinoza and Leibniz
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
i think the properties that constitute their essence are maybe impossible to pin down because emergence and interactionism
but that they do indeed have an essence
and the essence may be a pattern of transformation
which is what makes it hard to pin down
like say you have an archetype - it manifests in many different psychological archetypal configurations (in interaction with other archetypal energies), the body of the person, the semiotic network of the person, the social and physical world around the person, in that particular time/space with its particular cultural constraints
the variable manifestations of the archetype are infinite - yet it has a core reality
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Yeah I think the more you see of something the clearer more bare the essence becomes and there’s an everything-essence too that is what people don’t like to name
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
the original essence, from which all essences are derived
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
If everything is a thing
Which it is
It’s got essence
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
well if you posit essence, and you posit evolution of essence, you have to trace that back to a singularity of essence
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Yeah
Seems so intuitively correct
I’ve been accused of lazy thinking though
Like essentialism is too “this is what this is” without looking further
But I think that’s unfair
I also don’t think it’s reductive. Because I don’t think a bronze statue has the same essence of like, a big random piece of bronze. If you reworked or shattered the statue it would lose its essence. But the way I saw essence being described last night was reductive sort of reducing errthang to smaller and smaller bits to say what it is(edited)
Which I didn’t get at all
Like physics was seen as emergent from math
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
in my conception of essence, those processes which are not morphogenetically self-organising within some boundary do not have essence
so an artificially constructed statue of assembled bits that has no dynamic self-recreating whole would not in my mind have essence
but an archetype, or an organism does
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But non self organized entropy has got some kind of essence
Because it has to be converse
So it’s still something
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
yea it does at its fundamental level
whatever that fundamental level is
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Everything is something
EVERYTHING IS REAL
- Se
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
which is the level at which that process of morphogenetic self-organisation is taking place - perhaps at the atomic or chemical level in the case of a statue
but not at the level of the statue as a whole
that statue as a whole is just a conception
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
That’s interesting so only autopoesis or autocatalytic stuff has essence
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
so its true that every process of existence has an essence - and the pattern of its essence is bound up with the organising principles which regulate and develop its being
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
So essence is related to some innate sort of will
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
yes!
corvo07/22/2018
allo guys
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
hello there sir
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
See I could get behind that except I think the universe is alive
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
me too
i consider autopoeises to take place everywhere, as a basic condition for anything to exist
even inside an atom for example
it has a self-perpetuating activity of dynamic tensions
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Anything that generates information spontaneously must be imo
Shit organized itself
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
yea
the whole universe organised itself
that is fucking bananas XD
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
It is
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
lmao
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I used to be an atheist for all the regular reasons but once I got into my 20s I was like
This seems really hard to keep believing
And it’s only become more obvious to me as I’ve studied and gotten older
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
i was an athiest until i had my first mindblowing psychedelic experience
and then i was like holy fuck what is this reality
its vast and ive been living with my head inside a shoebox
we're so constitutionally blind
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Its weird when you think about how everything is just synchronicities and isomorphisms unfolding and start to see stuff everywhere
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
@jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I) i've had this thought recently that myths and archetypes don't exist separated from actual individuals. that is to say, in some sense the archetypal 'feminine' is the extrapolated nexus of all female qualities. but a single female is, in a sense, the archetype too. because the archetype is extracted from her. it's a bottom-up approach.
when i look at things in this fashion, i see that 'mythical' figures exist in our day and age, as actual people
for example, Trump is the King/Dark-Father, and that's not just figuratively... but quite literally, since the myth is extracted from individuals like him
Marilyn Monroe is anima
etc
most notably for me, i find Jordan Peterson to be the Father archetype
there is something Jung said in the Red Book
x-traonline.org/build/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/13_4_Jung_Featured.jpg
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
dark vs light father: "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them" vs. "Good micro routine adaptation there, chum"
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
^ Philemon was an archetype in Jung, and the insription here says:
“Whenever there is a decline of the law and ‘an increase in iniquity; then I put forth myself For
the rescue of the pious and for the destruction of the evildoers, for the establishment of the law I am born in every age.”
"I am born in every age" <--- is really, physically, literally true.
because the Fe+Ni father archetype gets re-born in every age. Peterson is just one example in modern times
Peterson is one Philemon figure presently on the world stage to balance things
that's not to say every FeNi would embody Philemon, ...more generally i think Je-leads would, but certainly Jung's version was Beta due to his psychology.
Carl Jung was NiFe ll--, so I think his Fe was Philemon. That's just a tentative guess
Phibious07/22/2018
“Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)
i've had this thought recently that myths and archetypes don't exist separated from actual individuals. that is to say, in some sense the archetypal 'feminine' is the extrapolated nexus of all female qualities. but a single female is, in a sense, the archetype too. because the archetype is extracted from her. it's a bottom-up approach.
when i look at things in this fashion, i see that 'mythical' figures exist in our day and age, as actual people
for example, Trump is the King/Dark-Father, and that's not just figuratively... but quite literally, since the myth is extracted from individuals like him”
This view of archetypes links to a particular model of how deep structure and general order of reality work. It's related to nominalism and formalism.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
googles nominalism(edited)
yes, i would say that describes me!
i came to this place through a round of deconstructions some years ago. i think my Ti turned on itself and saw the folly of reliance on abstract universals when language is a convenient human invention to help us categorize the world. there are no essences save for those which can be extrapolated out of common themes and thought of as abstract generalizations, rather than quintessential properties.
perhaps the exception to this may be in mathematics, though.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
NO ESSENTIALISM IS CORRECT
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
and geometry.
i'll fite u jelle!
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
HOW CAN YOU FIGHT ME WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE LINGUISTIC CONVENTION THAT ISNT EVEN REAL
I’m jk
Phibious07/22/2018
I did mean formalism[mathematics], so you may not agree with that part then.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I’ve been thinking about essentialism and nominalism a lot lately
And how it relates to functions
Seems there’s a bit a pattern possibly somewhere but I’m not sure yet because my initial hypothesis was disrupted by some cases that didn’t align so
But there’s definitely something there
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
mathematics is tricky to me because it seems like a beautiful, essential language, ...to which any content conforms to.
so it seems to me to be more fundamental than the things themselves
i can only see mathematics (as we know them) being non-essential if they happen to be situationally created by our present universal laws, and in others laws, other mathematics would be different
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Some people believe that
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
but as far as i can tell, mathematics would transcend even other universes, right? ...in what existence wouldn't 1+1=2, for instance
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
It’s a nontrivial philosophical problem
I don’t have a good answer really. I may have thought I did a couple of months ago but refuted myself so
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
interesting. i think at least, practically speaking, we kinda have to operate as though they're essential, since we can't escape this universe ;p
.
.
.
Phibious07/22/2018
re: morals,
Morals must hinge on how the essential is arranged.
Since it is the accidental that is really subject to the is/ought gap.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
You think the essential is arranged and relational?
Phibious07/22/2018
...yes?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I always thought of essence in terms of individuals (philosophical individuals, so the arrangement/relations are contingent). Not saying I’m right. This is way to heavy a topic to just say that. But that’s my natural inclination
Interesting
Relata or relations
Where is essence
Idk tbh
I’ve been thinking about it a lot and it’s very intractable
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think 'essence' is our left hemisphere wanting to 'grasp' things by use of labels and form
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I don’t know how left brained i am.
Phibious07/22/2018
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l) - Today at 12:57 AM
i think 'essence' is our left hemisphere wanting to 'grasp' things by use of labels and form
I was trying to write about this the whole time.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Ouuu share share
Phibious07/22/2018
Throw a ball and it follows a parabola, which matches a certain multivariable quadratic equation. Does it make sense to say that the ball is calculating a quadratic equation in order to know where to land? Not quite. The ball does give the right answer, i.e. the landing location will correctly fit the equation set up by the starting velocity. But it's more accurate to say that the ball embodies a process that matches some equation, rather than saying the ball calculates its own landing position.
Now suppose I want to reliably predict where a ball will land. I could learn the equations and crunch numbers, but I could instead find some superficially different system that happens to be analogous, i.e. embodies the same set of quadratic equations, and use that to give me the right answers, doing non-calculation just like the ball itself is doing non-calculation.
It's sort of strange that this would even work when there's no hard connection between the two things, the ball's arc exactly matches this other random physical system that probably isn't even parabola shaped but is analogous anyway.
1
Phibious07/22/2018
Most people can look at the trajectory and know very closely where a ball will land, or throw it with the exact right starting velocity to land in a particular place. It's possible that their brains are quickly calculating through subconscious quadratic equations generalized from past experience of projectiles in order to know where to throw the ball. But wouldn't it be faster and easier to do it by running some easy process that embodies the same abstract pattern as the one embodied by the ball, not-calculating it in the same way the ball itself is not-calculating it? Keep in mind that almost nobody can solve y = ax^2 + bx + c before a ball hits the ground, and that not being able to solve quadratic equations formally does not impede your ability to throw a ball in any way.(edited)
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
^ lots of cool stuff here. as this pertains to essences, this is part of why i feel that the universe only ever calculates one micro-bit at a time. there isn't a cosmic quadratic equation being run every time a ball is thrown, but instead an infinite number of quark computations are going on every second.... and it so happens that the net result of that looks like a given parabola.... in the same way that Newtonian physics "works" in a simplistic way to calculate planetary motions even though it breaks down/fails when harder physics are at play (re: three body problem, iirc).
we think the equations are "true" only until we realize they're estimations, or "net results"... when we find a deeper reality beneath them
that's why i think the universe may lack essential properties of that sort, because anything we know --in the physics sense-- may end up being a net effect rather than a fundamental thing.
1
1
Phibious07/22/2018
^^ I wasn't expecting this direction at all.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
oh wait, maybe i totally misunderstood your point
Phibious07/22/2018
No I think you did, it's just a surprising interpretation of things.
(edited)
Why do you think it is that each quark behaves the same way as other quarks of the same type?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think physics is built from the bottom up, so that macro-laws are "emergent properties" ...the same way chemistry is an emergent property of atoms.
hmm, i don't know too much about quantum physics honestly, but i do wonder if they're all identical
Phibious07/22/2018
Okay let's just suppose all quarks are identical. Why should they behave the same way?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i'm not sure in what sense 'behave' is used here... but i think it's because of what they are. their behavior likely is rooted in their geometry/shape/form.
quarks don't follow laws, ...quarks create laws by how their geometry interacts with other things
and "laws" are just typical effects of clashes or interactions
Phibious07/22/2018
Don't quarks follow the laws of geometry, then?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
yes, i think geometry and math are likely essential-- if anything is.
math/geometry creates physics, imo
and physics is an emergent property, probably
...although geometry may be subservient to spacetime
if we can imagine a non-spacetime universe
but i'm way out of my depths here now
i'm a noob
.
.
.
.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i once came up with a back-of-the-napkin theory on how geometry might emerge from math and just 1 principle. giving rise to spacetime
I can definitely see the potential for a model like that, it's the sort of thing I wonder about too.
But it's funny because that's the type of thinking that changed my view on essences and the like.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
the principle went something like this:
before anything/time/etc... there was "1". the number 2 didn't exist. because there was singularity.
and i mean this in a physical sense. there cannot be 2 if there is only one place anything can be. as soon as this singularity was broken, space was made because it means there was two separate locations. but the way this happened was because of one principle:
- - - two things cannot be in the same place at once.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
What was your view before Phibs and how did that change it
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
even if they're really packed together like in black holes... they're not literally in the same spacetime position. that's impossible
this impossibility forced it to go "elsehwere"
but there was no "elsewhere" in the singularity
and so a new dimension was created for this to exist
the impossibility of two-things-in-the-same-space gave rise to the second dimension, so-to-speak. and also distance.
it baffles my mind to think that before there was a second dimension, one could imagine existence being elsewhere (or in two places). we take it for granted now but it's not a trivial problem.
Phibious07/22/2018
I should say 'sold me on essences' rather than 'changed my view' because I wasn't all that solidified in my related thinking beforehand.(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
You can still do the math to space derivation, because you can start with math and derive four cleverly dependent real lines. Space just is four cleverly dependent real lines. QED.(edited)
.
.
.
So, with geometry and essences.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
hmm. interesting. what model proposes this i wonder? i'd love to see a math-derived universe theory
(in my pleb mind i try to answer the fundamental question of how did something come out of nothing. like, actual "nothing" ....and the things i come to are that math and geometry had to be established somehow first, before anything)
Phibious07/22/2018
There's nothing more at all. It's an extremely simplistic and unsatisfying way to make the connection that sort of gestures at what I was about to get into.
I don't think your parenthesis thing is wrong, in that geometry is not temporal.
But say we do what we were doing before, and take some object and ask 'what is this really?' and get a deeper explanation, many times over, and eventually we get to the lowest physics level.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
how do you guys think math/geometry came to be?
Phibious07/22/2018
I think it did not come to be, it is not temporal. You can derive it all merely by avoiding contradictions over and over.
So it would be a contradiction for it to not "exist".
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Dats very truuuue
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
agghh, but then we enter the problem of First Cause and all that. or...
who put the geometry there.
or existence
Phibious07/22/2018
What exactly is the problem?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
"i think it did not come to be" -- i'm curious how we can explain something like this. do you mean it was always there?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I want to blurt out seemingly irrelevant things about monads and qualia but I’m listening
Keeping my mouth shut is hard man
Phibious07/22/2018
Almost. It is timeless, which is different from always having been there. "Who put the geometry there?" isn't like asking "Who put Earth here?". Putting it there is in a sense the same as not actively introducing fundamental contradictions into reality.
"Who failed to actively introduce fundamental contradictions into reality?"
Uhh, nobody, I guess?
Everybody?
Does not compute?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Sheldrake’s favourite question
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i see, the question is moot
what does "timeless" mean? and how is it different from always having been there?
Phibious07/22/2018
Always having been there is the same as any other time thing except it happened to start at the start of the universe and hasn't gone away yet.
Timeless emphasizes that time-related questions fundamentally do not make sense to apply to it, i.e. 'who put geometry there?'
You can't become timeless just by being really old.
In fact, nothing can become timeless because if it were 'become' wouldn't make sense.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i'm kinda getting it, but i'm a bit confused. timeless has no origin... so there is no 'when' or beginning. right.
Phibious07/22/2018
Right.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think that's the same as saying it's essential, eternal, and irrevocable.
Phibious07/22/2018
Hmm, it might be.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
or at least i'm trying to make sense of it outside of wordgames
since it seems like we're just circling different phrasings
what does it mean for something to 'be' without ever having a point of origin? (i.e. timeless)(edited)
it would mean that it's an irrevocable and fundamental property of all-that-every-can-be-or-is, right?(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
Yeah, I think it would.
That makes sense.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Dat how monads are
1
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i was googling monads just now Jellz. wow
the Pythagoreans, who called the first thing that came into existence the "monad", which begat (bore) the dyad (from the Greek word for two), which begat the numbers, which begat the point, begetting lines or finiteness, etc.
(edited)
^ omg i was almost saying this very thing earlier
the singular broke into the dual, then created distance/etc
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
The thing about monads is. It’s not just about math and geometry. Ontological plenitude means qualia are also essential
Phibious07/22/2018
But so say we are at the lowest level of physics, and we ask one more time, 'what is this really?' we get a math/geometry answer, right?
And suppose you're trying to understand something, and you really get it exactly, what's the broken-down fundamental geometry view of your brain thinking about this going to look like? It's going to have some aspect that is the same as what you're thinking about.
Not similar, literally the exact same, math does not contain multiple separate instances of 'circle at the origin of radius 2'.
So in this moment, aren't you understanding through apprehension of essences?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
hm... essences are how i apprehend things, since i'm a limited organism with limited bandwidth and i can only do so by generalizing reality ;p
but it doesn't prove essences exist
Phibious07/22/2018
What do you think an essence is then?
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
unquestionable limits to deeper nuance
to say something is "essential" ...seems to me like a cop-out and stopping the investigation right there(edited)
in that sense i do dislike the word, in a way
especially since my view is that ...that sort of thinking.... is created by the simplifying process of our brains
so humans think in terms of essences.
but it's very human-centric to build a worldview that way
Phibious07/22/2018
Okay, but you are on board with breaking down physical objects into mathematical patterns.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
yes
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Okay wait can we all define essence quickly
Phibious07/22/2018
sure
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
ok phibs, how do u define it
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
To me an essence is a property that if you take away that property from a thing it is no longer that thing. Hence it is essential to the existence of that thing.
Phibious07/22/2018
^^ I was just typing that.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
ah.... i guess i don't think in terms of 'things' being real, that way either
well, to me there's human-real, then there's really real
Phibious07/22/2018
Only really real is what real ever meant.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
lol
human-real = that's a plant
real-real = "i'm pointing to a collection of atoms which i can't properly differentiate with the soil at some level... and which i have to use a conceptual schema to approximate into something usable (re: mental object)"
humans think in terms of mental objects
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Why can’t everything be real
I want my ontological plenitude
I want my metaphysical realism
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
well, mental objects are real in the sense that our consciousness is part of existence...
but it's more like a metaphor
our consciousness is not actuality, its a proxy(edited)
created in order to help us not get eaten by animals
mental objects = low-resolution approximations of reality-patterns, or what sheldrake calls "habits" (if im using that properly)
Phibious07/22/2018
I think worrying about the exact differentiation of objects is a red herring.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Metaphor is real. Isomorphisms exist outside of my knowing they exist. It exists even if all humans and living things die probably(edited)
The universe is metaphorical
Metaphor is real too
Everything is real
Phibious07/22/2018
This comes from using a model of the mind where it does detached modeling of things it observes.
So that version is observations go in and the mind fits them into its own categories and patterns and refines that over time.
But the observed things and the mind are both running off the same laws. The patterns that the world runs on are already the patterns that your mind was made out of. You get free information about what you're modeling, since you and the world are locked into the same very broad, but highly self-similar class of behaviors.(edited)
You can't not use this free information, it's built in at a fundamental level.
This is an automatic consequence of breaking everything down into the same Big Capitalized Universal Law.
Even if you dodge it through several levels of particle physics.
You can calculate back up the chain and make that simple parabola real again.
If you couldn't, the ball would not travel in a parabola.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I don’t even know how to think of essence and related things in terms of up and down but I’m spatially and temporally retarted it seems
Or like a “this comes out of this” sort of way
Se/Ni problems I guess. Or just low IQ problems lol
I have a primitive crossmodal brain
That’s why I doubt I’m “left brained” or that’s where my essentialism comes from (which is where the convo started)
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
well going back to an earlier topic, i was discussing how i think actual people are, in some sense, singular instances of archetypes, since archetypes are the decentralized patterns extracted from those people themselves.
I think Jung thought about it the other way around
(this relates to the convo i was having with phibs)
Jung tended to think that the archetypes were essential, and that people were proxies of them, or channels for them.
i find it more enriching too, to see the archetypes as created by us ...by our collective embodiment of emergent principles.(edited)
rather than seeing them as something outside of us or higher than us which we cannot truly ever encapsulate.
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
right
I imagine they are both
always becoming yet always elusive(edited)
1
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
probably, yeah
there is also a beauty when a person embodies an archetype as fully as they can
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
a sort of symmetry or resonnance per se
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I think in their most bare form they are everywhere all the time. Before us, in us, outside of us, reproduced by us, embodied, etc. Just isomorphism unfolding and layers of synchronicity everywhere
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
do you feel called to embody anything, heresy?
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
hmm
idk if it makes sense, but I want to become more human by becoming more alien
which is basically individuation, perhaps
but not alieness as a reaction but moreso as an organic occurance
with the intention of communing eventually, with something. whether that be people, or god, or w/e
seperation, then "harmony" in some sense
which sounds pretty much human to me
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But wrt to Jung’s essentialism. I also think essence must precede existence
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
dont know if theres any archetype for such a general thing
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But that’s dependent on a certain view of essence and existence and thingness
As we pointed out earlier
Phibious07/22/2018
Nah, I probably should have gone to sleep but I am still here.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
man! we're all night owls
corvo07/22/2018
Yay
Phibious07/22/2018
I think it depends on allowing or disallowing idea-stuff to exist, just sort of as an axiom.
1
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l) - Today at 3:51 AM
i was hoping the convo would go into the direction of God but it just lingered around it...
I think there is also a degree of disallowing a broad swath of stuff when ditching God.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Yeah it takes a lot more work to deny God
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
@hairy C | FeSi (I-II) the one thing that comes to mind is Christ, who is non-human (alien)....yet "the most human"
is that sortof what you feel, maybe?(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
Like it lingered around God largely during 'how did math come to exist?'.(edited)
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
I don't see a direct correlation between myself and christ. my endeavour as it stands is certainly more ego driven(edited)
Phibious07/22/2018
You worried about First Cause problems related to that.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i think God can exist if you allow idea-stuff to exist, as a sort of axiom
since he's kindof the apex of that
essence-less = godless, perhaps?
Phibious07/22/2018
Drastic measures.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Okay this is annoyingly Ti but how do you all relate this to meaning and the meaning of meaning
Essence that is
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
if abstractions are to be real, then that allows for synchronicity to have a place, as well as concepts and Laws. and God becomes, i think, probably an inescapable conclusion as you chase the problem further back...(edited)
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Synchronicity to me is as obvious as causality. I sort of think causality is a subset and kind of synchronicity which might be weird to you guys I know
I am weird
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
shush gurl
Phibious07/22/2018
I'm bothered by tracing physics back to geometry if you don't accept abstractions and laws as real.
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
hmm, i'm honestly on board with you guys on most everything. I dunno why i seem like such a dry materialist/empiricist when I actually aim to explain it. It's bizarre. i feel like Windows running Ubuntu.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Lol
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
I'm just sitting here like "either I need to be able to feel the essence of things or it doesn't fucking exist"
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Honestly I feel the same way but opposite. Like I sound so not materialist when I really am
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
it took me over an hour.. but i finally just caught up with this conversation
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Lol time flies when I chat in here
Hairy C | FeSi (I-II)07/22/2018
welcome back to the circus
2
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
ty ^^
can't blame you for getting absorbed Jelle! this has been a great convo, sooo much inspiring content
there's a lot i would've responded to in real-time, but the moment's passed..
one thing i wanted to say tho, on the topic of essentialism vs nominalism:
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
if the archetypes were essential, then wouldn't it be that they had to exist before humanity came into being? what makes more sense is along the lines of what Aub is saying, that they came after the existence of human beings, and emerged from our experience and observation over time. what are we experiencing and observing? literal individual people and their manifest traits. so individuals are the source of our created abstraction, the Archetypes. but to this I would add, like @hairy C | FeSi (I-II) was saying, that as we conceptualized the archetypes, we perpetuated and amplified the realities of our natures which already existed, by relating to them as animals relate to instincts; as a guide for behavior that aides survival.
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I think the archetypes-as-such are essential properties of the universe
So yes
They did exist before us(edited)
The myths and stuff are just contingent on humans sure
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
but how does that work, when they manifest as embodiements of human nature and things which are relevant to humans specifically?
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But there’s a deep structure that I think is timeless
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
i see
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I wrote about this once
In the thing I wrote about Spinoza fixing Jung’s shoddy metaphysics
It’s on the forum
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
i can get behind this... if we say for example that the male/female archetypal divide is a manifestation of a more fundamental yin/yang axiom of existence, etc. if that's what you mean?
but at the same time i think it does matter that "archetype" relates specifically to the human content and human drama.
it can't be reduced down that way
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--)07/22/2018
even deeper than that, the ouroboros is an archetype which symbolizes the extra-human phenomenon of how order is destabilized into entropy, from which emerges order, etc.
but i think that the archetypes cover a wide range of topics, because they are the result of mankinds observation of the world around them over aeons.
corvo07/22/2018
I disagree with some of this....
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Even more fundamental than that. Those are both dualities
corvo07/22/2018
...But carry on..
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Very basic stuff
corvo07/22/2018
Yep
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
That’s why I always say archetype as such
Auburn | TiNe (ll-l)07/22/2018
Alerith | TiNe-Fe (II--) - right. and that relates to entropy/syntropy, i think.
but again, i think there are concepts in archetypes that are not reducible down. for example, women's hips being alluring, and red lips. the archetypal Anima has these qualities in her that are directly related to our evolution and aren't part of fundamental laws. it does us no good to talk about the Anima archetype without those specific human-contingent qualities. because then we're just talking about something else.
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
>Essentialism: all of us are humans because we have characteristics typical of humanity
>Nominalism: all of us are individuals who happen to be categorized as humans due to arbitrarily selected commonailities
it seems like the preference for nominalism would emerge out of a radical epistemological skepticism, of a humean/kantian sort. the idea that all knowing is only based on modelling of perceptions, which cant get at the essence of a thing. related to the problem of causality in hume, ie all we see is constant conjunctions of certain sets of sensory data then we assume causality links them. making a logically unreasonable jump from statistics into ontology. direct archetypal encounters within the human psyche, on the other hand, seem to provide a non-sensorily mediated comprehension of the deep ontology of an objective morphogenetic process
therefore it seems very tied to questions of epistemology, and what possible modes of knowledge we subscribe to as possible
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Very much so
What would you say you guys are
Neither?
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
im an essentialist
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I just don’t see how we can ontology and existence at all without things having essential properties that constitute their thingness
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
ive had way too many encounters with apparently objective morphogenetic forces to think anything else is reasonable
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
That just seems like analytic truth to me
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
there are no other appropriate explanatory principles with which i can explain such experience
there are clear ontological 'nodes' in reality to me
generative principles differentiated from but interrelated with each other
a generative principle which is transcendent/eternal and which finds form within time
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I also advocate ontological plenitude a la Spinoza and Leibniz
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
i think the properties that constitute their essence are maybe impossible to pin down because emergence and interactionism
but that they do indeed have an essence
and the essence may be a pattern of transformation
which is what makes it hard to pin down
like say you have an archetype - it manifests in many different psychological archetypal configurations (in interaction with other archetypal energies), the body of the person, the semiotic network of the person, the social and physical world around the person, in that particular time/space with its particular cultural constraints
the variable manifestations of the archetype are infinite - yet it has a core reality
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Yeah I think the more you see of something the clearer more bare the essence becomes and there’s an everything-essence too that is what people don’t like to name
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
the original essence, from which all essences are derived
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
If everything is a thing
Which it is
It’s got essence
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
well if you posit essence, and you posit evolution of essence, you have to trace that back to a singularity of essence
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Yeah
Seems so intuitively correct
I’ve been accused of lazy thinking though
Like essentialism is too “this is what this is” without looking further
But I think that’s unfair
I also don’t think it’s reductive. Because I don’t think a bronze statue has the same essence of like, a big random piece of bronze. If you reworked or shattered the statue it would lose its essence. But the way I saw essence being described last night was reductive sort of reducing errthang to smaller and smaller bits to say what it is(edited)
Which I didn’t get at all
Like physics was seen as emergent from math
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
in my conception of essence, those processes which are not morphogenetically self-organising within some boundary do not have essence
so an artificially constructed statue of assembled bits that has no dynamic self-recreating whole would not in my mind have essence
but an archetype, or an organism does
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
But non self organized entropy has got some kind of essence
Because it has to be converse
So it’s still something
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
yea it does at its fundamental level
whatever that fundamental level is
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Everything is something
EVERYTHING IS REAL
- Se
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
which is the level at which that process of morphogenetic self-organisation is taking place - perhaps at the atomic or chemical level in the case of a statue
but not at the level of the statue as a whole
that statue as a whole is just a conception
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
That’s interesting so only autopoesis or autocatalytic stuff has essence
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
so its true that every process of existence has an essence - and the pattern of its essence is bound up with the organising principles which regulate and develop its being
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
So essence is related to some innate sort of will
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
yes!
corvo07/22/2018
allo guys
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
hello there sir
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
See I could get behind that except I think the universe is alive
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
me too
i consider autopoeises to take place everywhere, as a basic condition for anything to exist
even inside an atom for example
it has a self-perpetuating activity of dynamic tensions
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Anything that generates information spontaneously must be imo
Shit organized itself
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
yea
the whole universe organised itself
that is fucking bananas XD
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
It is
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
lmao
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
I used to be an atheist for all the regular reasons but once I got into my 20s I was like
This seems really hard to keep believing
And it’s only become more obvious to me as I’ve studied and gotten older
UmbilicalSphere07/22/2018
i was an athiest until i had my first mindblowing psychedelic experience
and then i was like holy fuck what is this reality
its vast and ive been living with my head inside a shoebox
we're so constitutionally blind
jelioskebab™ | TiSe (II-I)07/22/2018
Its weird when you think about how everything is just synchronicities and isomorphisms unfolding and start to see stuff everywhere