1.6.1 Things known in themselves
Pierce explains that Aristotle “was driven to his strange distinction between what is better known to Nature and what is better known to us”.46 Aristotle’s claim that things can be “known by nature” indicates that things exists in themselves exclusive of any person knowing them or not, but there is also the presupposition there is an implicit observer in things existing in themselves.47 while Scientific knowledge begins with what is better known to us, based on what we sense and understand, it ultimately arrives at a comprehension of things better known in themselves. Science is the attempt to arrive back to the level of the observer implicit in the thing existing in itself from an outside source, science aims to make the observer one with the object. When we say “put yourself in the shoes of other” in science we are trying to put our mind in the “shoes” of the phenomenons.
Be one with the spirit, be one with the force. In science we are trying to be one with the object
1.6.2 Truth is conceived
Authors commonly mistaken their intellectual work as suggesting that they have somehow produced truth from where it was not existing before. But truth is not created in the same way that an object is produced, truth is not made per say, it is rather conceived. This is what it means to be “made” in the true sense of the word because an object is made by way of another object, the material of one object is used to make the other object, but conceived truly originates from nothing other than the same material, this means that what makes the conception and the conception are the same thing, as we say, you conceived yourself into being, you came out of your mother but you conceived your mother, in the sense that she is a part of your life and you conceived your life as you are a variable of.
This stems from problems with image of the world as created (Alan watts 6:32). Add how science kept the law but took out the lawmaker
The process of creating is work from the outside to the inside like the arranging of parts together forming whole. While the nature of growth works from the inside to the outside like to blossom from simple point to more complex form. Growth complicates itself, but from a purely practical standpoint a vulgar pragmatists might ask: why would something need to complicate itself? Is not the practical concern to simplify the activity, as in alignment with the mathematical task of “simplification” to reduce a multivariable fraction to get a single or direct answer.
Monotheism has influenced the common idea that one substance, one god, has created all things. However all descriptions of God never take on a singular meaning. They say in Christianity “God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit” as if God is the same substance that takes all these different forms. Likewise in Islam God is associated with “99 names”, the names are called attributes of God, like “god the Merciful, god the witness, god the creator of the universe and all matter” etc. Before monotheism, older religions like Hinduism for example, all things are their own god. This is why for instance there was worship of animals, which the monotheistic religion strongly opposed. The idea that every single thing is it’s own god, means that it created itself, developed into the monotheism which requires the need for there to be an overarching substance which unites each specific thing. This disagreement goes back to the pre-Socratic time and is perhaps the oldest of all disagreements in history, as to whether god is a single substance in the universe or whether there are infinity of gods monotheism verses polytheism. When the monotheist appreciate the beauty of a natural object like a tree, they say ‘ it is the great work of good, look how beautiful god made it’. This separates the process of creation from the result that is the object, and the process is attributed to be God while the object is the subordinate. The reason for this is because the process transcends the object it produced and can create something else whereas in order for the object or change it would not be what it is so it is limited to itself. God is associated with that capacity to transcend a limited result from an object, but the problem is that the process is specific to the object, in other words the object itself involves all the ingredients or the sequences of behaviour that is the process. Old polytheistic religions would say that the object is its own god for it involves that process. For example you leave out a fruit for several days and come back to it and you see it grew bacteria, maggots of some sort, the bacteria did not necessarily come from anywhere outside the fruit, they did not travel to it like a fly for example, but they grew from within it, they where at some point part of the fruit but grew to be a recognizable size during its decay process, the bacteria on some level evolved.
The kind of "practicality" that aims to simplify complexity concerns instrumental activities whose aim is to produce results that when attained nullify the need for the activity. Instrumental activities are unsustainable without the kind of reason attained by activities done for their own sake whose results become the standard for continuity. There are two moral reasons for why individuals partake in activities: first, if the activity is only done to attain some desired end, then it is important to first wonder why that result is an object of desire? Second, if the activity is done for its own sake, then the participant must first ask whether they want to do the activity or not because the very lack of wanting to do it negates the fact that the activity is done for its own sake. Also doing the activity for some other sake is not doing it at all because than you are improperly doing some other activity. The activity cannot be its own end if it is not a desired aim. Yet the desire for the result is an end independent from the process of activity. The real question becomes, is what you want to do given or acquired?
Thoughts are actions of physical things
Lust committed in his heart
There is the Christian notion that something is first committed in the mind before it is carried out in conduct, in other words, the standard for doing something is enough satisfied by being conceived in the mind, this is the first form of doing something. We all commonly know the famous maxim in the bible “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”(Matthew 5:28) The modern opinion looks at this notion and views it as an extreme case because it is commonly assumed that thoughts have no bearing on reality, there is a strict separation between what goes on in my head and what happens out in reality; ‘I can think of anything and no one will know’, this is the attitude we carry out within our internal perception. But the ancients did not take this distinction as quite literally as we do today. Perhaps even before the ancient Greeks up until the Christian tradition, all thoughts are known, if not by someone else, by the person committing them, and that alone constitutes a cause for reality.
most of our practical maxims in society depend on the relation between mind and reality to be more of a unity rather than a duality. For example in common law due process which has a strong Christian bearing, “mens rea” which is known as “guilty mind” sometimes brings a more harsher punishment than only “actus reus”, for instance in the case of attempted murder brings a longer prison sentence than negligence resulting in manslaughter. The idea is that the intention is more real than the action because one is the cause of the other. Or rather that deliberation as in the case of first degree murder is the strongest ground for conviction.
Searching for the truth has the correct connotation if it implies that we do not know how to explain what we know to be true. This is why all great scientific achievements are labeled as “discoveries” because the idea is that truth becomes knowledge, we become aware of what already exists, or what has always existed, universal knowledge, but the conception of it denotes how it has always existed, and how it always becomes into being. This is the dilemma that metaphysics deals with.
Truth involves the precondition for something to be self-evident, but this possibility for self-evidence is not to be confused with the fact that it is present. The fact that a thing is present is not indicative of what it is.
It is a trick of language that a word has to bring up an image of an object in the mind. Hegel says;
“But their complaint that philosophy is unintelligible is as much due to another reason; and that is an impatient wish to have before them as a mental picture that which is in the mind as a thought or notion. When people are asked to apprehend some notion, they often complain that they do not know what they have to think. But the fact is that in a notion there is nothing further to be thought than the notion itself.”
Words are for the purpose of communicating experiences of objects that are shared, but that should not bring the presupposition that truth is only to point at objects, nor is truth merely reduced to what is presented as objects. Even in language no one word is limited to only one kind of object. Every word can be used to refer to different objects that are similar.
together objects based on a common feature they share, like a function or an attribute which are not necessarily physical aspects, and depending on the special context of its use, a specific meaning is picked out that points to an object it is relating to. Words therefore describe relations between objects because we view an object not merely as it is presented but also during a particular stage in a timeline. For example when we look at a kid we do not just simply refer to them as a ‘little person’ based on their height but rather see them at an early stage of development, they are potentially an adult.
Just because an object is by nature differentiated and singled out from other things, and this is the natural precondition to understand something, that alone does not make it known. We always say there is ‘more than meets the eye’ because a single object is a scope for an infinity of other details, and truth must disclose knowledge of all these. Hegel describes the difficulty in philosophy is due to an incapacity for thinking in the abstract, he says:
“This difference will to some extent explain what people call the unintelligibility of philosophy. Their difficulty lies partly in an incapacity — which in itself is nothing but want of habit — for abstract thinking; i.e. in an inability to get hold of pure thoughts and move about in them. In our ordinary state of mind, the thoughts are clothed upon and made one with the sensuous or spiritual material of the hour; and in reflection, meditation, and general reasoning, we introduce a blend of thoughts into feelings, percepts, and mental images. (Thus, in propositions where the subject-matter is due to the senses — e.g. ‘This leaf is green’ — we have such categories introduced, as being and individuality.) But it is a very different thing to make the thoughts pure and simple our object.”
Thoughts arise in the mind as images of objects experienced in daily life but this is a way the mind uses the available material to communicate meaning with the observer. In the psychoanalytical study of dream analysis, the mind uses imagery to communicate meaning. What is considered “real” in a dream does not have the same content of reality as in waking conscious experience. Whereas in normal daily experience an owl may indicate nothing else than itself, in dreams it may be an idiom for wisdom. Moreover what constitutes facts in normal waking experience, like the boy walks down the street, is self-evident since it is happening and it is assumed that what is happening makes sense and has a rationale behind it, but in dreams the the truth of the facts are not derived from what is happening in the event because in most cases what is occurring in dreams does not necessarily make any sense by the standard of events having an obvious connection, say I push the cup off the table, and it naturally falls, in a dream however my pushing of the cup triggers a change in the event entirely into a new event. Interestingly in waking life this is how events occur also but the senses do not have the attention span to capture all these details “in-between”, the senses do not capture how your throwing of the cup relates to your mom calling you for dinner, these events appear to bear no relation, but in a dream one explicitly triggers the other and so we say the events are convoluted and random. Their connection is however the feeling and attitude the observer has in relation to the events. Whereas in waking life whether you feel one way or another about something does not appear to affect the existence, there is discreetness between what you think and what happens, it does not matter if you dislike something and want it gone, it still exists. in dreams however what is happening precisely is based on and is determined by what you think and feel. The mood on a dream directly changes the event. The element of reality in a dream is not what it immediately happening but those are expressions of attitudes and thoughts.
Abstract thinking is counter intuitive
Abstract thinking is counter intuitive because it relies on the truth of its fact to be prevalent when it is furthest away from what is immediate and common to the senses during the present. The reason for this is because the truth of abstract thinking operates independently from a particular sequence of time, just like a theoretical model is independent whether it is applicable during a past, present or future time. Crude materialist argue that an abstract notion furthest away from sensible experience has no truth and they justify this by connecting the most abstract principles to the most immediate instances of experience. There is nothing wrong in doing that except they than limit the most abstract of principles to being merely modes or attributes of this particular instance, which then limits the possibility for understanding how the events at a given moment in the present is in fact a set of abstract models, that when taken in their own are theoretical but together they form an actual concrete experience we take to be the only true moment. The problem with limiting the most universal principles to the present moment relates to the the problem with abstractions, which in this context is maintaining a principle variable part of a complex system as it is can be true independently from the system. Ordinary sensible experience does not see the world ordered in the direction abstract thinking tells us, for example, classical mechanics coincidence with sense perception on the fact that first there is a result, and then follows its movements. Classical mechanics depends on a static notion of an object that, if the present state of an object is known, it is possible to predict how it has moved or will move.
The weakness of empiricism is the very skill that is praised as the advantageous over Metaphysics,
Academics usually claim that reasoning is correct when it is consistent with a formal system, or that which is consistent with what our natural organs of sensations provide. But we will see that even the natural organs of the understanding do not arrive at truth by our formal standards of “correct” reasoning, but in fact they obscure a factor in nature by limiting it to abstractions characterizing moments of a more general relation. For example, ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength shorter than that of the violet end of the visible spectrum cannot be observed by the faculty of perception without the aid of some instruments. But colour is naturally perceived and the sense of touch can naturally derive heat from light. Ultraviolet radiation is a fundamental source in nature for colour and heat but our senses derive heat independently or colour independently by their special faculties, and claim that from them their fundamental source is derived, but really they belong part of the fundamental derived by them. The zeroth law of thermodynamics states “If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other” this is really a logical rule, if heat and light belong to some different form of energy, they also belong to each other, that is, you can derive heat from light and light from heat. In fact both heat and light are fundamentally motions. For example, in atomic theory, heat is simply the result from stimulating of atoms by frication causing them to rapidly move in place. But the establishments of both of these needs to be explained by their informal side that cannot just be accepted on the precedent that it is simply readily available.