Great, but I think you have been better elsewhere at mentioning the recursivity, and irony, in the project of human construction of the metaphysical. (This is freQ territory?).
When I contemplate constraints, what are the constraints of that endeavour? Is there a special metaphysical status tied to this recursivity? What happens when have, as it were, an infinite regress. Not of "why's" but of operators like "what is this relation like?". Whereupon there is a relation established between thought and the relation, which can grow ad infinitum. The exciting thing here is not the accumulation but the "looking along", to paraphrase C.S. Lewis. After all, an infinite sum (or series of operators) behaves very differently from a finite one. I think the questions of "looking along" in this conceptual fashion is indeed core metaphysics.
I did leave out the recursivity of metaphysics as "metaphysics", probably for convenience. The set that doesn't contain itself etc. all would apply to metaphysics, except that metaphysics as a subject which considers the constraints of subjects and which itself is constrained points rather neatly to phenomenology, which arrow is tucked into this article, particularly in the category error section. I didn't wanna push too hard on that aspect because it would drag me directly into freQ theory, but you're right to point it out and, of course truth be told, I would've much preferred just diving straight into freq theoretical phenomenology, but was attempting to make this more of a PSA.
..and then the question is whether "looking along" is the same thing as saturation. I would contend that it is not. Will likely expand on this at another time and place.
Hey Alex, I think you and I could help each other out a great deal considering we are interested in the same things. I am extremely well adept in physics and metaphysics (them being both sides of the same coin) and most certainly philosophia. I'm a working singer-songwriter and find you and your music pretty inspiring. I think the subject of metaphysics has been muddied up quite well over the centuries by religion (secularized metaphysics), misdirection and overall beliefs. The agnosis then asserted that you are your beliefs, which is the cause of all suffering. The ever-prevailing questions that get the best of these "philosophers" or "physicists" that they find need to make 600 page books on the word anattā for example is proof of the agnosis stated. And that all of physics is built upon our understanding of light, which is wrong, has sent physics into quantum quackery well-funded and patched. Like what has happened with the word soul in religion. I've been listening to your interviews, and I want to help fill some voids in your understanding as you have filled some of mine. Thank You.
For someone as goal driven as yourself, quite a bit (tho now you're cleverly goading me into doing more than laying out the principles of metaphysics, which was rhe sole purpose of this piece): achieving goals is all about hitting thresholds-limits. Limits themselves are constraints. Specifically, limits are constraints revealed by internal systemic processes (often autopoietic or autocatalytic). You-In your constant quest to start a menaingful collective-employ artificial limits in order to try and expedite collective formation. One metaphysical ingredient that is entirely necessary to such a cause is alluded to in my list - the very premise of hitting a limit implies a quantitative threshold, an internal saturation. This means you have to bump up the frequency and volume of relations internal to the collective.
Of course this is stuff you've probably already considered, but perhaps not in the metaphysical sense, which, once taken up, allows you to play with the variables (of emergence, phase transition, state change, consolidation, dissipation) with more agency.
metaphysics holds the only "great truths" imo. Flux, opposition, constraint, excess, unity - the movement of the dialectic. Not “the good” or platonic forms or aphorisms or any such religioneering.
Religion is poor metaphysics as it typically cannot help but break the scientific rigor of phenomenal logical constraints by adding epistomology where there is none.
Metaphysics isnt completely divorced from empiricism, since space, time, identity and difference are all evident, not derived apriori.
Yep
Great, but I think you have been better elsewhere at mentioning the recursivity, and irony, in the project of human construction of the metaphysical. (This is freQ territory?).
When I contemplate constraints, what are the constraints of that endeavour? Is there a special metaphysical status tied to this recursivity? What happens when have, as it were, an infinite regress. Not of "why's" but of operators like "what is this relation like?". Whereupon there is a relation established between thought and the relation, which can grow ad infinitum. The exciting thing here is not the accumulation but the "looking along", to paraphrase C.S. Lewis. After all, an infinite sum (or series of operators) behaves very differently from a finite one. I think the questions of "looking along" in this conceptual fashion is indeed core metaphysics.
I did leave out the recursivity of metaphysics as "metaphysics", probably for convenience. The set that doesn't contain itself etc. all would apply to metaphysics, except that metaphysics as a subject which considers the constraints of subjects and which itself is constrained points rather neatly to phenomenology, which arrow is tucked into this article, particularly in the category error section. I didn't wanna push too hard on that aspect because it would drag me directly into freQ theory, but you're right to point it out and, of course truth be told, I would've much preferred just diving straight into freq theoretical phenomenology, but was attempting to make this more of a PSA.
..and then the question is whether "looking along" is the same thing as saturation. I would contend that it is not. Will likely expand on this at another time and place.
Hey Alex, I think you and I could help each other out a great deal considering we are interested in the same things. I am extremely well adept in physics and metaphysics (them being both sides of the same coin) and most certainly philosophia. I'm a working singer-songwriter and find you and your music pretty inspiring. I think the subject of metaphysics has been muddied up quite well over the centuries by religion (secularized metaphysics), misdirection and overall beliefs. The agnosis then asserted that you are your beliefs, which is the cause of all suffering. The ever-prevailing questions that get the best of these "philosophers" or "physicists" that they find need to make 600 page books on the word anattā for example is proof of the agnosis stated. And that all of physics is built upon our understanding of light, which is wrong, has sent physics into quantum quackery well-funded and patched. Like what has happened with the word soul in religion. I've been listening to your interviews, and I want to help fill some voids in your understanding as you have filled some of mine. Thank You.
Actually... https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell
I love you you are brilliant
Xxxxx
I don't know man. What does Metaphysics actually lead to?
For someone as goal driven as yourself, quite a bit (tho now you're cleverly goading me into doing more than laying out the principles of metaphysics, which was rhe sole purpose of this piece): achieving goals is all about hitting thresholds-limits. Limits themselves are constraints. Specifically, limits are constraints revealed by internal systemic processes (often autopoietic or autocatalytic). You-In your constant quest to start a menaingful collective-employ artificial limits in order to try and expedite collective formation. One metaphysical ingredient that is entirely necessary to such a cause is alluded to in my list - the very premise of hitting a limit implies a quantitative threshold, an internal saturation. This means you have to bump up the frequency and volume of relations internal to the collective.
Of course this is stuff you've probably already considered, but perhaps not in the metaphysical sense, which, once taken up, allows you to play with the variables (of emergence, phase transition, state change, consolidation, dissipation) with more agency.
You said it there at the end of your comment -- metaphysics gives us an analytic of play (and a clearing away of that which blocks play).
yes, but I just think philosophy should be confined to great truths - not play.
metaphysics holds the only "great truths" imo. Flux, opposition, constraint, excess, unity - the movement of the dialectic. Not “the good” or platonic forms or aphorisms or any such religioneering.
religion is metaphysical. philosophy should constrain math, computer science, logic games, ..
Religion is poor metaphysics as it typically cannot help but break the scientific rigor of phenomenal logical constraints by adding epistomology where there is none.
if your idea of metaphysics includes chaos theory and quasicrystals, i'm into it. though i wouldn't call it metaphysics.