This thread is about movement, taken out of its normal context of "things moving," and described instead as the basic substance of all. I begin with a response to Wes Morris, who said: Of course a river is moving no? It's also changing. The river of now is not the same river as now except in convenience of referring to a generality. I am not the me now that I am now except in the same. and asked: What's the different between change and movement? Please answer in your groovy new thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A river is moving, and it's not moving. Form shifts; pattern stays. (Not counting the fact that rivers' shapes change, too, but that's just a small flaw in the metaphor). And notice how just as the form requires the pattern (the water in motion requires the river shape), the pattern requires the form (the river shape is maintained by the water in motion). Now, to your question: Change and movement. Change emerges from movement once a point of reference is formed. I count "change-stasis" as one of the most basic "differelations" of the cosmos, along with "same-different" and "this-that," because all three of these are kind of circular in their dependency. (For the uninitiated, "differelation" is a term that I like to use instead of either relation or difference, because I suggest that relation = difference). Movement (if you accept that it is different from change) partakes in no such pairing, for movement is the "hyphen" that comprises the differelations. As I have alluded to elsewhere here, everything in the universe can be defined in terms of these differelations relating to each other. Getting back to the general idea, I may have described somewhere earlier this general metaphor - if you can imagine it - of a river tied into a knot. This metaphor helps to illustrate how movement can be thought of as substance, structure, and process, all at the same time. The knot's structure (the structure of difference-relation comprising all things) depends upon the substance undergoing process (moving). The knot's process depends upon the substance having valleys (structure) through which to flow. The existence of the knot's substance (movement) depends upon the process of flow. Just a model. However, I think a picture of this model could be created, once the differelations are all mapped out. I call this the Ontic Code.
Onefinity: Here's several comments: 1. As noted in the other thread, all movement requires time. Timeless movement is an absurdity, as time is the dimension through which movement is observable. 2. Movement cannot be substance, as something must be moved in order for there to be movement. 3. In order for movement to exist, there must also be the notion of non-movement. 4. In what way is the difference betwixt opposites "movement"? I need not take into consideration time in order to clearly see that the tree and the rock are not, in fact, united into one being/object. 5. If an identity of a river is comprised solely of the river's movement - which is necessary for it to be a river - would not one say that it's identity is also movement and thus the pattern itself is shifting?
Even the movement of a single atom causes change. We then convert "change" into a metric called "time", i.e. the hours or the seasons. Movement = change which yields the "time" metric.
First, thanks for indulging my request. Marrying individual lexicons in a productive manner is often too taxing for people to bother. I think it's probably easy to spend one's entire life seeking to do so. It makes me think we should design a method of expiditing the process. So I'm trying to understand what you mean exactly by "pattern". I'm thinking of it as "generality" as I used it here: "The river of now is not the same river as now except in convenience of referring to a generality. " How is a point of referenced formed? Through observation? Through interacting movements? What is it that's the point and how is it referenced? Hrmph. In my lexicon, "change-stasis" and "same-different" would be nominally different, generally really only in the appropriate context of application. I'd say there are many cases where I might use them interchangeably. I think I see the circulatrity to which you refer, but haven't formalized "differelations" into three forms as you've done. Are there more that are fundamental? Which category would "positive-negative" fall under, or is it it's own? If not, is it also fundamental? If not, why not? What increases its complexity beyond the fundamental? Perhaps you have a list of these relationships you could share? I guess I'm also a little confused as to how movement becomes itself from stasis without change, or you're saying movement simply IS and does not change from anything, which as such renders change secondary? Is then, "movement" basically indicative of the arrow of time? Would you agree that it's the resultant thereof? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm asking so many to discern what ground we share in common. Sometimes I think you and I are on exactly the same wavelength with differently shaped ideas supporting a similar framework, other times I think you're much wiser than I... others the opposite. It's interesting. Anyway...) Typically, I would consider movement part of a "differelation" like "movement-stillness". I'm trying to figure out though if that sets movement equal to change and as such is dealt with by your clause of accepting it as being different from change. I'm still trying. I have to say it doesn't seem like it, but maybe... depending on how you frame it. For instance "movement-stillness" would require change for the states to be discernable. In this way you could frame "change" in the same way you frame "movement", so I suppose it seems to dissolve in a semantical mess in my head, where choice of terms is everything... which bothers me. I suppose it would seem the point is to choose the one that works for you subjectively and go with it? It just seems interesting to me in that your choice will have repurcussions in logical consequences further down the analysis. Choose "change" as the basis you'll get one thing. Choose "movement" as your basis and you'll consequently wind up at different conclusions. Man it's difficult to try to really understand what you're getting at. ) I'm unsure of what substance, structure and process mean to you in the context of your larger comprehension here. Do you mean substance as in meaning or as in "a chunk of universal material" or what? Do you mean structure as in "a pattern" or the ontological "here is this structure"... or some other way? What is a process in terms of function? Where does function fit into the lexicon you've built around this context? Sorry if I've asked questions you've already answered. I'm just free-wheeling off the top of my head before the iron cools down so to speak. I guess that answers my questions directly above at least. Hmmm. But what is the knot again? You say it's "movement". Hmm. My own comprehension of things makes it tough to squeeze this into my head properly. I kind of see what you mean but it's pretty foggy at the moment. I need to think on it further. The ontic code? Hehe. Never heard the term "ontic" before. Hrmph. Cool sounding though. I'd love to see an animation of it functioning.
More later. For now...Yes, I have a list of differelations that is over 200 long. The project that lies ahead is mapping out their relation to each other. What most of them do involve or implicate, however, in their web is the basic three that I mentioned above. Which is why I called them "basic." If you'd like, I can type in the entire list here and get you started on the coding...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I didn't say it would be easy to understand. This is DEEP thinking. Like I said, your typical tools of logic are not enough here. So if you want to use ONLY them, then go elsewhere.
A thought just occured... I'm at a party standing next to a group of guys and they're having THIS conversation (see above) pfffff, for fuck's sake, get a life!
I don't know if it can be explained. However, here is an excerpt from my theory that addresses the topic of intuition: The Marriage of Reason and Intuition It would not have been possible to explore the subject addressed here with reason alone. Reason and logic are certainly essential to the life we know as human beings. Reason is both empowered by and bound up with the language that unites our minds and allows us to explore concepts in a seemingly objective manner. Reason allowed me to consciously employ the findings and metaphors of other inquiries, to explore correlation and pattern. It allowed me to suspend ideas in mid-air and to test them, and to employ here the words necessary to open a door for others to possibly understand my own conclusions and to reach their own. Reason alone, however, is not sufficient. Reason belongs to the world of the part, not the whole. It is suitable when the subject is distant, but not when the place of inquiry is inside the observer itself. It is not capable of addressing things that are logically in contradiction, or which are bound to the language of objects. Nor is reason capable of working when we are considering space and time in ways that would appear to question the very structure and coherence of our own existence. This is where intuition is essential. Intuition is naturally difficult to describe. The French philosopher Henri Bergson describes it as a grasping from the inside, “a kind of intellectual sympathy where the subject coincides with what is unique and inexpressible.” In my own experience in the creation of this model, intuition expressed itself in a relaxation of thought and urgency that allowed my “larger self” to show me things only when they really needed to be shown. For example, on one occasion I was making slow progress on a particular line of reasoning. Soon after I decided to stop pushing ahead, to leave it alone to simmer, a new door opened and I was able to move forward. As another example, on more than one occasion I awoke in the middle of the night with a new metaphor or platform for addressing an aspect of the inquiry. Yet another occasion involved “thinking like an atom.” There is a certain amount of faith involved with intuition, a faith in some kind of unbroken chain or oneness that lets you actually navigate inside-out and upside-down, and to suspend disbelief in the ability to be related to things no matter how far separated in time and space. Intuition also seems to express itself in visceral ways, hinting at a kind of intelligence that is not restricted to the brain. Bergson spoke of the difference between reason and intuition thus: Intelligence starts ordinarily from the immobile, and reconstructs movement as best it can with immobilities in juxtaposition. Intuition starts from movement, posits it, or rather perceives it as reality itself, and sees in immobility only an abstract moment, a snapshot taken by our mind, of a mobility. Intelligence ordinarily concerns itself with things, meaning by that, with the static, and makes of change an accident which is supposedly superadded. For intuition the essential is change: as for the thing, as intelligence understands it, it is a cutting which has been made out of the becoming and set up by our mind as a substitute for the whole…The habitual labor of thought is easy and can be prolonged at will. Intuition is arduous and cannot last…The fact is that there are two kinds of clarity. (1946) The two kinds of clarity represented by intuition and reason are meant to work together. In his philosophical work Anatomy of Reality, biologist and physician Jonas Salk speaks to the importance of this merger: Our subjective responses (intuitional) are more sensitive and more rapid than our objective responses (reasoned). This is in the nature of the way the mind works. We first sense and then we reason why. Intuition is an innate quality, but it can be developed and cultivated…The evolutionary way of thought might be seen as the intuitive way of thought. Intuition may be seen as a continuation or extension of “natural” processes, like instinct, for example. Reason may be seen as that which man adds to explain his intuitive sense. Intuition and reason play a powerful role in our lives and it is necessary, therefore, to understand each separately and together…I suspect that if appropriately cultivated, the two would work best together if the intuition were liberated from bondage and constraints, and put in charge of a respectful intellect. If a respectful intellect becomes conscious of intuition and reflects upon what it observers, a self-correcting, self-modifying and self-improving process is established. (1983) Intuition opens new doors for reason, while the limits of reason stimulate intuitive feelings. This is most powerfully illustrated by paradox. Heather Wood Ion recounts the way in which Salk addresses the value of paradox: Paradox evokes potential and simplicity. As an effect upon our minds, paradox as opportunity reduces the authoritarian justifications of linear logic, and enhances the appropriateness of understanding to experienced function. Paradox teaches us to value the unity beyond the thresholds of meaning to particular minds. (1994) We tend to fight paradox in two ways. One is by surrendering to our inability to deal with it, and then rejecting it as nonsense. The other way we fight paradox is by attempting to solve it rationally. Paradox should be seen as a vehicle that we climb into. It takes us places. It is not meant to be solved in and of itself, but rather employed to help us to become more of ourselves. It triggers intuition, and is thus perhaps most useful as we interweave the intuitive and rational lines of inquiry. The General Theory of Movement abounds in paradox, seeking to utilize it rather than to fight it. Throughout this work I have included “triggering paradoxes” that might be used as vehicles for intuition and also as starting points for dialogue that may lead to alternative conclusions or models. Paradoxically, some of the conclusions reached in this theory with the aid of intuition will seem counter-intuitive. I believe that this occurs when we force reason and intuition to go “head to head”. When reason and intuition are interwoven so as to open paths for each other, they need never meet. That is their true union, although it is a narrow tightrope to walk upon.
Wes, imagine this: you are on a bus that is parked at a bus station. You see a bus next to yours, also parked. Now, you are on the highway. Your bus is next to that other bus, moving at exactly the same speed. For a moment, if you are looking at that bus, you may forget that you are moving. Now extend that to the whole universe around you. Imagine that everything moved as you moved, including space. Would you be moving? Or staying still? Is there a difference in this case?
Onefinity: I sorely hope the rest of this doesn't follow this line of thought. If something is "logically in contradiction", it is impossible and thus not existent. Intuition cannot make this different, nor do I imagine it can help us "deal with space and time in ways that would appear to question the very structure and coherence of our own existence". So you relate intuition to sudden epihany? Faith? Faith is poison to the mind, my good man. Faith is epistemologically invalid and a bane to all man. Yet is that a valid line of thought? -Is- movement all there is to reality? Movement itself requirse a constant series of static states. There is also extensive immobility on a macroscopic level. Mountains, trees, rocks, the backdrop of the sky...all static! Save intuition does not, yet, appear to give us a single thing, and even tries to do the impossible, that is, harmonize contradiction. How does intuition offer us anything then meaningless data if it is simply sense? Sense without consciousness is worthless. Oh dear God. Paradox? Please don't tell me someone is trying to defend somethign -that- illogical? And there are no limits to reason, as reason is linked with reality itself. "Authoritarian justificiations of linear logic"? I have never read a more disgusting phrase in my life. If something is necessarily paradoxical, it is wrong, as it violates an axiom which is at the core of existence. It is sloppy thought to assume otherwise. It is not meant to be solved? What are you talking about? Of course it is! It is meant to be shown to be either true, in which case it surely cannot contradict anything, or meant to be shown to be false. And this is why I shall assert that your General Theory of Movement is unfit for a seeker after wisdom. Reason discerns truth, this intuition seems to discern nonsense.
Onefinity: I wouldn't affirm it is a matter of being "ready", but more a matter of intuition being seemingly incoherent, irrational, and wrong. Of course, if you could offer me a still clearer image of intuition, my view may change.
OneFinity, Whilst I am having some difficulty in attempting to comprehend some of your unique terminology I thought I would offer this that may be relevant to the discussion. In physics as you no doubt are aware of, there is a theory called Special Relativity. This theory amongst other rather interesting ocncepts declares that there is within this universe no such thing as an absolute rest frame. Simply put it states that everything is in some form of relative motion. Nothing is absolutely still. Thus the polarised oopposite of movement [ in Prince's POV ] would be absolute nothingness. So it can be concluded that if it exists it is moving. Light has been given the priviledged postion by the said theory of being the fastest an entity can travel and that a photonic wave or partical changes it's position at the rate of 'c' [ approx 300000kmspersecond] and no slower - in a vacuum As this is the fastest rate that anything can change at and when considering energy to be a faundamental of mass one can extend this logic to state that the universe as a whole is chnaging at this rate of 'c'. There is some thought out there that calls this idea as "moving dimensions" or other such similar lables. What it means is that as we are a part of this movement we actually can not detect the rate of change but can only conclude that this is so from deductive reasoning alone. We can not step outside everything and discern that we are all moving at the same rate plus what ever rate we are cogniscient of. In a way it means that a car travelling at 100Kph is actually travelling at 'c' + 100kph. But all we can descern is the cars velocity as 100kph. As the car travells, it is also inherantly changing at the rate of 'c'. So there fore the universal movement is indescernalble to us thus it appears as stationary yet that stationary state is actually changing very rapidly at the rate of 'c'. As we are all inherantly changing at the same rate it appears as if we are still. Possibly the above may help clarify your thoughts......and possibly allow a use of more commonly used definitions in your postulates. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Quantum Quack: What about on a macroscopic level? And not to mention taht motion requires an infinite series of static states, does it not?
