Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Polarity

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 4:56:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.

Like you say there are some grey scales. Between Light and Dark there is to varying degrees of shade.

but Dark is the absence of Light. So there is varying degrees of how much a space is filled with light. Say 10% light is darker than 70% light. You state darkness is yet light. You say the absence of something is the existence of something. This is saying grey is white, or grey is black. I don't think any of that logically follows.

0 does not equal 1. .1 .2 .3 .4 is a progression to 1. But none of those values equal 1 or 0.

You state falsehood remains truth. Truth is in agreement or accord with fact and reality. Something becomes false as soon as it no longer agrees with fact. As soon as a glass of water gets a lump of dirt in it, it is unclean. For falsehood to remain truth, it would have to start out as truth and remain in accord with fact as it becomes in disagreement with reality. Reality is fact and therefore the 2 actions are mutually exclusive.

Some may argue Newton's formulas for gravity do not accurately predict the extremely small or extremely dense. So this is truth that fails in certain circumstances. Here we can see that it is not true and false at the same time. It is true in one set, and false in another. The facts or reality of the situation has changed. The mathematical description of a scene has now reached the limit of it's explanatory power.

metaphysical is that which is physical. However when you state it "is that which is" you are saying equivalent, equal, interchangeable the same. This is not true. A part does not equal a whole. Metaphysical means something unperceived but thought to exist. Now there can be physical things that are not perceived. Dark Energy is a metaphysical concept (that would be fun to debate if anyone disagrees).

So something metaphysical can be physical. In fact the name suggests it is physical and made of matter or energy, opposed to thought. But not everything physical is metaphysical. There are countless examples of physical things that are perceived by a persons senses.

So they are not equal. They are Parent to subset relationship.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 6:54:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:56:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.

Like you say there are some grey scales. Between Light and Dark there is to varying degrees of shade.

but Dark is the absence of Light. So there is varying degrees of how much a space is filled with light. Say 10% light is darker than 70% light. You state darkness is yet light. You say the absence of something is the existence of something. This is saying grey is white, or grey is black. I don't think any of that logically follows.

Darkness is the absence of light, as we define it. That which makes sense is that which makes sense, to us.


0 does not equal 1. .1 .2 .3 .4 is a progression to 1. But none of those values equal 1 or 0.

Zero has a value we have given it. That which is nothing, to us, may be something, at another plane of consciousness.


You state falsehood remains truth. Truth is in agreement or accord with fact and reality. Something becomes false as soon as it no longer agrees with fact. As soon as a glass of water gets a lump of dirt in it, it is unclean. For falsehood to remain truth, it would have to start out as truth and remain in accord with fact as it becomes in disagreement with reality. Reality is fact and therefore the 2 actions are mutually exclusive.

It would appear, you think reality is static; for me, reality is not static, but dynamic. Truth does not always remain true, in every situation; in fact, truth often becomes falsehood; and, falsehood is made true.


Some may argue Newton's formulas for gravity do not accurately predict the extremely small or extremely dense. So this is truth that fails in certain circumstances. Here we can see that it is not true and false at the same time. It is true in one set, and false in another. The facts or reality of the situation has changed. The mathematical description of a scene has now reached the limit of it's explanatory power.

metaphysical is that which is physical. However when you state it "is that which is" you are saying equivalent, equal, interchangeable the same. This is not true. A part does not equal a whole. Metaphysical means something unperceived but thought to exist. Now there can be physical things that are not perceived. Dark Energy is a metaphysical concept (that would be fun to debate if anyone disagrees).

A part may be defined as a whole, just as that which is infinite may have its limits. It's a contradiction, to define that which is larger than our selves yet we do.


So something metaphysical can be physical. In fact the name suggests it is physical and made of matter or energy, opposed to thought. But not everything physical is metaphysical. There are countless examples of physical things that are perceived by a persons senses.

Again, that which is physical is relative to observation; being relative, there is a dynamic that exists, between the subjective mind and objective reality. It is the subjective mind that defines objective reality, or in other words, gives it meaning. Without the subjective mind, the objective world is without meaning; and, without the objective world, the subjective mind does not exist.


So they are not equal. They are Parent to subset relationship.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 6:54:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:56:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:

A part may be defined as a whole, just as that which is infinite may have its limits. It's a contradiction, to define that which is larger than our selves yet we do.

I don't think we can have a coherent conversation. You claim the part can be defined as the whole. So I can buy a "Nut and Bolt" and define it as a "Car".

I would really love to see a debate between you and SkyAngel. I think that would be popcorn eating entertainment.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 10:48:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:18:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 6:54:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:56:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:

A part may be defined as a whole, just as that which is infinite may have its limits. It's a contradiction, to define that which is larger than our selves yet we do.

I don't think we can have a coherent conversation. You claim the part can be defined as the whole. So I can buy a "Nut and Bolt" and define it as a "Car".

Meaning is relative to one's experience; you can say anything you want, but if that which you're saying contradicts that which you know, then, there's confliction. So, if you define a nut and bolt as a car yet don't believe it is a car, then, that's called being duplicitous. To this day, I have never met a single person who's defined a nut and bolt as a car; but, if I were to and he, or she, actually believed a nut and bolt were a car, then, in his, or her, own mind it is. Does that mean I agree with them...? No.


I would really love to see a debate between you and SkyAngel. I think that would be popcorn eating entertainment.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.

I see what you are saying, and I'd like to think on this, but I do believe there are times when opposites are absolute. I mean, when a lamp is unplugged, it is not merely not as plugged as it was before. There is no electrical connection at all. Likewise I think that "not-being" is just that - it means not existing at all. I think there are probably subjective opposites and objective opposites, and they must be divided into their proper camps.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:18:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 6:54:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:56:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:

A part may be defined as a whole, just as that which is infinite may have its limits. It's a contradiction, to define that which is larger than our selves yet we do.

I don't think we can have a coherent conversation. You claim the part can be defined as the whole. So I can buy a "Nut and Bolt" and define it as a "Car".

I would really love to see a debate between you and SkyAngel. I think that would be popcorn eating entertainment.

I hate to admit it, but the same name came to me as well, lol.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:29:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 11:25:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:18:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 6:54:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:56:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:

A part may be defined as a whole, just as that which is infinite may have its limits. It's a contradiction, to define that which is larger than our selves yet we do.

I don't think we can have a coherent conversation. You claim the part can be defined as the whole. So I can buy a "Nut and Bolt" and define it as a "Car".

I would really love to see a debate between you and SkyAngel. I think that would be popcorn eating entertainment.

I hate to admit it, but the same name came to me as well, lol.

I knew I was not the only one.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 9:25:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 11:20:02 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.

I see what you are saying, and I'd like to think on this, but I do believe there are times when opposites are absolute. I mean, when a lamp is unplugged, it is not merely not as plugged as it was before. There is no electrical connection at all. Likewise I think that "not-being" is just that - it means not existing at all. I think there are probably subjective opposites and objective opposites, and they must be divided into their proper camps.

There are those things that have objective meaning, to us; or, we define as absolutes. However, that objectivity is relative, to us. Meaning is determined by our relationship to the objective world.

If absolute nonbeing or absolute being exists, apart from our experience, being all meaning is relative, to us, then, they have no meaning, apart from us; you can't define that which you don't know. In saying we can know that which is objective, or absolute, I mean to say we can know it, in that we give it meaning. In saying, "The light is absolutely off.", we alone give that statement meaning; and, it is objective, in as much as it is relative, to us.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 6:42:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 9:25:27 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2014 11:20:02 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.

I see what you are saying, and I'd like to think on this, but I do believe there are times when opposites are absolute. I mean, when a lamp is unplugged, it is not merely not as plugged as it was before. There is no electrical connection at all. Likewise I think that "not-being" is just that - it means not existing at all. I think there are probably subjective opposites and objective opposites, and they must be divided into their proper camps.

There are those things that have objective meaning, to us; or, we define as absolutes. However, that objectivity is relative, to us. Meaning is determined by our relationship to the objective world.

If absolute nonbeing or absolute being exists, apart from our experience, being all meaning is relative, to us, then, they have no meaning, apart from us; you can't define that which you don't know. In saying we can know that which is objective, or absolute, I mean to say we can know it, in that we give it meaning. In saying, "The light is absolutely off.", we alone give that statement meaning; and, it is objective, in as much as it is relative, to us.

I've often wondered if the universe would ever really objectively exist at all if it weren't for the presence of intelligent beings to be aware of it. The universe itself is aware of nothing. To it, the difference between a trillion years and one second is absolutely nothing. Can that which is unknowable in any form ever really exist?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 2:53:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 6:42:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/29/2014 9:25:27 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2014 11:20:02 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:20:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In considering the law of opposites, the idea something doesn't make sense, without its absence, for instance, being does not make sense, apart from nonbeing, light doesn't make sense, apart from darkness, truth doesn't make sense, apart from falsehood, subjectivity does not make sense, apart from objectivity, and that which is physical doesn't make sense, apart from that which is metaphysical, I'm left bewildered, with the inseparable necessity of one for the other. In other words, the two are intrinsically entangled yet remain two conflicting, contrasting, and opposing realities.

In some ways, it reminds me of the polarity of a magnet, with positive and negative charges; however, like degrees of temperature, negative degrees are not the absence of temperature yet merely a relative absence of its perception. Is it possible, that which we perceive as merely an absence is in essence the same yet to a greater or a lesser degree? Namely, could nonbeing be being yet relatively imperceptible? Is our experience based, merely, on our range of perception? Light may be darkness, to one who cannot see it; truth may be falsehood, for lack of understanding; subjectivity may be merely defined, by our limited observation, of an objective world; and, that which is physical may be suspended in time and space, set apart from a metaphysical reality.

However, I don't believe these are stark demarcations; yet, as waves vary in degrees, being undulates into nonbeing, light undulates into darkness, truth undulates into falsehood, subjectivity undulates into objectivity, and that which is physical undulates into that which is metaphysical. Notwithstanding, nonbeing is being, yet still; darkness is yet light, once again; falsehood remains truth; objectivity is still subjective; and, that which is metaphysical is that which is physical, once more.

I see what you are saying, and I'd like to think on this, but I do believe there are times when opposites are absolute. I mean, when a lamp is unplugged, it is not merely not as plugged as it was before. There is no electrical connection at all. Likewise I think that "not-being" is just that - it means not existing at all. I think there are probably subjective opposites and objective opposites, and they must be divided into their proper camps.

There are those things that have objective meaning, to us; or, we define as absolutes. However, that objectivity is relative, to us. Meaning is determined by our relationship to the objective world.

If absolute nonbeing or absolute being exists, apart from our experience, being all meaning is relative, to us, then, they have no meaning, apart from us; you can't define that which you don't know. In saying we can know that which is objective, or absolute, I mean to say we can know it, in that we give it meaning. In saying, "The light is absolutely off.", we alone give that statement meaning; and, it is objective, in as much as it is relative, to us.

I've often wondered if the universe would ever really objectively exist at all if it weren't for the presence of intelligent beings to be aware of it. The universe itself is aware of nothing. To it, the difference between a trillion years and one second is absolutely nothing. Can that which is unknowable in any form ever really exist?

Personally, I believe the unknown cannot exist, apart from that which is known.