On Reason and Teleology
Axiom 6 (On Reason and Teleology):
In the process of thinking and acting, the reason for our thinking and acting, which is to obtain our intended conceptual destination in thought or action, is determined prior to or at the moment of, the substantiation of our will to think or act, that is to say that the final cause of our thinking, which is, as previously mentioned, the reason and intended conceptual destination of our thinking or acting, is conceptually contained as a subset within its first cause [1], our will to think or act (final cause ? first cause). In essence, that which has a final cause necessarily has a first cause [2], and that which has a first cause isn’t bounded by or contingent upon any prior material cause, thus the mere existence of a single first cause guarantees that first causes exist, absolutely, for it is impossible to conceive of a first cause coming into being in-between two purely physical material causes in an infinite and deterministic chain of material causes and effects. Fundamentally speaking, the universe has a beginning and a sufficiently reasoned reason for existing as opposed to not existing, and a sufficiently reasoned reason for existing in one form as opposed to another [3]; and nothing comes into existence without there being a greater reason for its existence than for its non-existence. [4] And anyone who asserts that there is no reason or cause for the existence of things either has no cause or reason for asserting this, or he has. In the first case, his assertion is no truer than its converse; and in the second, he establishes by his very assertion the fact that there are causes or reasons for the existences of things. [5]
Footnotes:
[1] Definition first cause: I define a first cause as the reason for the existence of a thing. A first cause is a cause which has the cause or reason for its existence in the set which immediately precedes it and is thus directly related to it in its set Holarchy, and not in something external to itself, or rather, disjunctively related to it. All first causes have their origin in something both existent and non-physical (i.e. non-localized and unchanging potentiality), and not in something physical (i.e. a changing, localized actuality), which is the case for all physical material causes; that is to say that all first causes are born of memory by means of will and imagination, and that the beginning and end of all causal chains lies in memory. Furthermore, the mere existence of a single first cause guarantees that the eternal chain of physical causation which supports materialism and determinism as logical metaphysical constructs, is non-existent, because not only is the deterministic chain of causality not eternal, but is broken all the time by all beings that possess a subjective will, and therefore must be non-existent in the absolute sense of the word. That is to say that there can exist material causes, but that those material causes necessarily bridge first and final causes and there is no such thing as a blind change or motion which is happening for no reason whatsoever because all changes in some way or another, serve subjects.
[2] Note: That which has a final cause necessarily has a first cause because all final causes are necessarily subsets of their first cause (final cause ? first cause), meaning that, by the Ontological Principle of Precedence, a final cause cannot exist without a first cause because all first causes necessarily precede their associated final causes in time, and also that, by the Ontological Principle of Duration, so long as the internal changes (material causes) which exist for the purpose of actualizing the final cause of a thing in relative space and time, exist, the concept of the final cause exists as well, and so does the concept of the first cause, that is, the reason for its existence, that is, the first set which distinguishes that thing from other things.
[3] Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason:
-For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
-For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
-For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.
[4] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, G.W. Leibniz’ Philosophical Essays, On Contingency, p. 29.
[5] Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Physicos, p. 204.
In the process of thinking and acting, the reason for our thinking and acting, which is to obtain our intended conceptual destination in thought or action, is determined prior to or at the moment of, the substantiation of our will to think or act, that is to say that the final cause of our thinking, which is, as previously mentioned, the reason and intended conceptual destination of our thinking or acting, is conceptually contained as a subset within its first cause [1], our will to think or act (final cause ? first cause). In essence, that which has a final cause necessarily has a first cause [2], and that which has a first cause isn’t bounded by or contingent upon any prior material cause, thus the mere existence of a single first cause guarantees that first causes exist, absolutely, for it is impossible to conceive of a first cause coming into being in-between two purely physical material causes in an infinite and deterministic chain of material causes and effects. Fundamentally speaking, the universe has a beginning and a sufficiently reasoned reason for existing as opposed to not existing, and a sufficiently reasoned reason for existing in one form as opposed to another [3]; and nothing comes into existence without there being a greater reason for its existence than for its non-existence. [4] And anyone who asserts that there is no reason or cause for the existence of things either has no cause or reason for asserting this, or he has. In the first case, his assertion is no truer than its converse; and in the second, he establishes by his very assertion the fact that there are causes or reasons for the existences of things. [5]
Footnotes:
[1] Definition first cause: I define a first cause as the reason for the existence of a thing. A first cause is a cause which has the cause or reason for its existence in the set which immediately precedes it and is thus directly related to it in its set Holarchy, and not in something external to itself, or rather, disjunctively related to it. All first causes have their origin in something both existent and non-physical (i.e. non-localized and unchanging potentiality), and not in something physical (i.e. a changing, localized actuality), which is the case for all physical material causes; that is to say that all first causes are born of memory by means of will and imagination, and that the beginning and end of all causal chains lies in memory. Furthermore, the mere existence of a single first cause guarantees that the eternal chain of physical causation which supports materialism and determinism as logical metaphysical constructs, is non-existent, because not only is the deterministic chain of causality not eternal, but is broken all the time by all beings that possess a subjective will, and therefore must be non-existent in the absolute sense of the word. That is to say that there can exist material causes, but that those material causes necessarily bridge first and final causes and there is no such thing as a blind change or motion which is happening for no reason whatsoever because all changes in some way or another, serve subjects.
[2] Note: That which has a final cause necessarily has a first cause because all final causes are necessarily subsets of their first cause (final cause ? first cause), meaning that, by the Ontological Principle of Precedence, a final cause cannot exist without a first cause because all first causes necessarily precede their associated final causes in time, and also that, by the Ontological Principle of Duration, so long as the internal changes (material causes) which exist for the purpose of actualizing the final cause of a thing in relative space and time, exist, the concept of the final cause exists as well, and so does the concept of the first cause, that is, the reason for its existence, that is, the first set which distinguishes that thing from other things.
[3] Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason:
-For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
-For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
-For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.
[4] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, G.W. Leibniz’ Philosophical Essays, On Contingency, p. 29.
[5] Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Physicos, p. 204.
Comments (77)
“Purpose” is a human perspective. We cannot talk of the ‘teleology’ of the universe unless we are simply referring to our intersubjective take in the universe - as some proposed ‘noumenal body’ we cannot in any sense REASONABLY talk about the teleology of the universe (to do so is anthropomorphism disguised as omnipresent insight).
Fundamentally speaking we don’t know if the universe has a ‘beginning’ or not. We simply assume so because being finite beings we assume everything else has a start and end because that happens to be the manner in which we appreciate existence (or rather what ‘existence’ is to us as humans).
We cannot be other than human and the universe isn’t human just because we only know if this concept via human conception.
It seems that you didn't read the whole thing, I gave an example of a final cause. Ironically, in saying that "there are no examples of final causes," you're contradicting yourself. Given your low IQ, it doesn't surprise me that you are able to do this and not even realize it.
Quoting I like sushi
rubbish.
Quoting I like sushi
any why not? Isn't the answer obvious, how is it that you haven't figured it out yet? don't you realize that if the universe has no beginning, that all objects that come into being have causal chains that extend backs indefinitely into the past, and then, after clinking and clanking for an eternity, produce a physical object that goes into and out of being in a blink of an eye in comparison. 'nobody knows if the world has a beginning' says the fool, who thinks that the former is a 'logical possibility.'
Quoting I like sushi
the law of identity and non-contradiction extend backwards into the past indefinitely, and thus so can our minds; meaning that the secrets of existence and the universe can be known. if one can understand the fundamental laws of logic and at least one absolute truth, they can deduce many more from it, and solve the riddle of existence. but firstly, one must not, as you seem to do, take the most skeptical position because they think its cool.
“Rubbish” is not an argument against what I said.
and why is that? because there is no evidence that mind cannot exist apart from matter, yet materialists still continue to assert that it cannot anyways, and then the mistakes of those that we trust extend their influence into the minds of the mindless masses (that’s you) and cause them to mistake assumptions for absolute truths?
I think it is disingenuous to present a logical argument based on mystical axioms. Mystical axioms, are definition, dubious. Therefore any logical argument put forward can never be a sound argument if based on mystical assumptions.
To put this more simplistically our “axioms” are mystical propositions. The problem of inference is an inescapable problem; yet the mystic isn’t concerned with this in the slightest and so shouldn’t dress their mystical ideas in a logical framework and expect applause for the monstrosity they produce.
I’m not against mysticism at all. I think it is an extremely creative ground for play. Its use only ever lies in what it can reveal in a pragmatic form - otherwise it is no more than pure fantasy. The richness of mysticism is due to how it can spark into life a creative force that manifests something of use. There is no logical truth in mysticism though.
I put forward my reasoning which you called ‘rubbish’. What is “sufficient reason” and who/what is doing the reasoning?
Maybe you think it rational to disentangle the “why?” from the “how?”. I find it to be a useful distinction for conducting scientific investigation, but I’m not entirely sure what use there is to view the “why?” in some proposed separation? Meaning science deals with the “how?” rather than approaching the “why?” very often. There is always a grain of “why?” embedded for sure! I just don’t see how we can apply methodology of asking “why?” with the same intensity as we do when asking “how?” - especially in the application of logic.
Ignorance is no refutation. Not knowing is a requirement of questioning. We can assume cause and reason. We can explicitly work in limited sets - logic being one. A valid logical argument doesn’t necessarily make it useful (except in a negative sense).
Anyone who either asserts there is no reason or cause is in the same illogical frame as anyone asserting that there IS a reason or cause. Both are sound within a finite reach though. Beyond experience and comprehension we are limited in our estimates.
That is all I am saying - you may mean the same but you’ve not stated it.
I like to put these things on pause as soon as we say something questionable, and this is definitely questionable.
The reason for thinking and acting often has nothing to do with a "conceptual destination." So we shouldn't make this statement as if it's something universally applicable.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Me either. Again, I hit "pause" as soon as we say something questionable. Let's fix it so it's okay from the start. You don't want me to just ignore/gloss over problems, do you? (Why would you want that if you do?)
in the act of willing to move your arm to grab a cup and then drink out of it, for example; when you will to grab the cup and drink out of it, the final cause ‘to drink’ is decided at the same time or before you will to move your arm, the first cause, which is enacted for the purpose of achieving the final cause, to drink, and is a conversion of potentiality to actuality in mind.
are there any intelligent humans on this forum? where are they!? how come the only two people I’ve interacted with are I like sushi and Terrapig, where are the philosophers at? this is a philosophy forum, is it not? @baden
So first, "we shouldn't make this statement as if it's something universally applicable" doesn't imply that it's never applicable. In other words, an example of it being applicable wouldn't suffice to make a universal statement.
Secondly, and I'll leave it at this for the moment, because it's best if we tackle just one thing at a time, "to drink" isn't necessarily a conceptual "destination" is it?
Note: the constant insults and arrogance don’t exactly encourage others to respond either.
Secondly, I didn't see much of inquiry here. Did you have questions about this philosophy or were you just putting it up looking for counter statements?
I have a question.
Isn't the one who doesn't have cause or reason for his assertion, his assertion being that there isn't cause or reason for things, proving his assertion by example?
one can’t speak without having a reason for speaking, nor speak on behalf of a particular position without doing so.
Sure one can. It's called making noise, innit?
yes we should make it universally applicable. because if there exists a single first cause, in any sense of the word, the physical chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is non-existent and a first cause exists, and this is because a first cause cannot exist in-between two physical causes (please read the footnotes, you’re just waisting time again and embarrassing yourself, again)
Quoting Terrapin Station
yes, acting necessities thinking and thinking involves.cocnepts, not thinking I’m the sense of intellectualizing, but thinking in terms of intuition. to grab the glass and bring it to my mouth for drinking, I just intuit the process as a whole before or at the moment of willing to do it. this intuition of a concept or set of concepts, acts as the causeless cause for the action.
i know how hard it is to write a book because I’ve been writing one for about two to three years now, so much respect to you for writing one.
in terms of the Will, I’m not sure if anyone has conceived of the will as a first and final cause before, so these might be my original ideas. I am looking to have my axioms and principles section published soon, so make sure you remember me when citing.
Quoting Josh Alfred
I’m looking for someone to see something that I don’t see. I want someone educated to look at it from a different perspective and tell me if they see flaws. Unfortunately, the dunces of the forums, sushi and terrapin cant help but ruin my posts with their nonsensical responses. never once have either one of them posted anything helpful. it annoys me to see only them commenting on my posts.
So once again, in the spirit of pausing when something questionable is said, what would any support for that statement be?
you’d be making noise with intention of annoying someone, or making noises for the purpose of making noise, or maybe, for the purpose of bringing yourself pleasure, or proving to someone that you don’t need a reason for doing someone which is in itself a reason.
you have so understand the nature of materialism, which suggest that the causal chain is without beginning and without end and without disruption, so the existence of a first cause is impossible. the existence of a final cause necessitates a first cause, meaning that a first cause exists within the causal chain, which makes it non-existent as a whole. how do you not get this? you really f’ing annoy me, I’ve wasted so much time explaining concepts to you but they’ve alll went over your head everytime, same with this one, and this is because you refuse to change your own opinion when presented with facts that contradict it. I have no time for people like this.
Which is equal to having no purpose.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Is it? Or is it just babble? Am I trying to accomplish something, or just mindlessly chattering away whatever comes to mind, because why not? Maybe both!
Where are you getting this from? Materialism only posits that the world is solely comprised of material (and (dynamic) relations of material). Materialists can have any view of "first causes," causality in general, etc.
a first cause has its final cause contained within itself and is therefore teleological, meaning that they are presupposed by reason and thereby intention of mind; to be a materialist and a person who believes that there exists a first cause is to be a materialist that contradicts oneself and doesn't know it; a first cause isn't born out of physicality, but the lack thereof, so if a materialist thinks that there are first causes he is conceding to the existing of a non-spatial aspect to existence and therefore that the all isn't physical. again, all of this information is contained within the original post. go read it in its totality and then ask questions if you have questions, don't ask questions before you've read the post entirely because they may be answered by it.
making noises for the purpose of making noises has a purpose, that of making noise. this is quite clear and unambiguous.
Is just making noises.
Although one may say the purpose of an act is the act, thus it has a purpose; it's equally valid, by the same logic, that the act happening for its own sake, just happened, with no purpose in mind - not even itself. It just happened, for no reason!
Why? Why not?
Which we'd think because?
its true by definition.
if it involves the will, it's teleological. the will cannot be instantiated without reason, that reason can be in itself. 'i.e. making noises for the purpose of making noises' but really in this context, you're making noises to prove to yourself that you can will without reason, but then that's a reason for willing.
If that's all we're doing, couldn't we define it another way?
you're contradicting yourself again. if there exists a non-spatial aspect to reality, the all isn't material. so saying that all causes are material causes, when some causes have their origin in the non-spatial and others have their origin in the spatial is to purposely ignore the distinction between them when distinguishing them is paramount. a first cause is a cause which acts from non-locality to non-locality or non-locality to locality, and a material causes is a cause which acts from locality to locality.
Does it have to? Maybe, maybe not.
What wills the will? Itself? How does it do that? Does it... just do that - on account of nothing?
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Can't you?
Why does gravity suck us in and not throw us out? No reason, it just does.
Why are we having this, in actuality, pointless conversation? Why not? We can, and we do.
You're saying that the initiated event's purpose lies in itself; sure, in essence it does.
But why is there an event to begin with? Why, why, why, why...? Why not?
There just is, without anything in mind, no purpose or reason to cause it to happen, or maintain, or end.
You're putting rationale in the whirlpool of ideas, and it's going to sink.
Have you ever read "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings? What i get from this is we should not assume there is no reason for existence and we should not assume there needs to be a first cause.
However some have speculated existence to some extent cannot be explained other than "i think therefore i am". How do you feel about this? I like the book "flatland" by Abbott Abbott
see my profile or click on my name if you would like. No wrong answer.
no, I don't trust non-mystics and non-metaphysicians to give meaning to empirical or intuitive truths. we must distinguish between existence as it was before the big ban and existence as it is afterward; there may not be a reason for existence as it was before the big bang because, and this is because it is eternal, meaning that it's reason for existing lies in its antithesis, or rather, 'that there is no necessary reason why it should not be;' however, existence as it is, the material aspect of existence, necessitates a reason, and this is because, as stated in the axiom, that first and final causes exist inside our mind, and if they exist inside our mind they exist in the universal sense of the word, meaning that the coming into being of the universe involved a first cause...why? because the only other alternative is that the causal chain is infinite and therefore there was no first cause, but the existence of this infinite causal chain is negated by the fact that first and final causes exist; if the infinite chain existed, there could be no such things in between physical causes. a first cause involves teleology, that is, a reason, that is, an intention of mind; the existence of a first cause proves not only that mind precedes matter, but that God exists. This post proves the existence of God, but you have to have a clever eye to recognize it.
we should use scientific principles in our reasoning in my opinion. However i do agree that there is alot of evidence (as Alcoholic anonymous calls it) that a God or gods exist. To get a full understanding of reality we should read as much as possible. Given our limited time on earth i would say we'll never come to complete knowledge of reality.
you only need to meditate and treat others, to include all lifeforms, as if they are yourself, in top of seeking knowledge. you can achieve the mystical union with God but you have to be very pure first. if someone tells you that mysticism is irrational or that the mystical union is not possible, discount their opinion entirely because it means that they haven’t yet achieved it and therefore that they don’t have knowledge of absolute context in which they exist and therefore cannot give proper interpretations to scientific facts. they could be the greatest physicist or scientist or philosopher in the world according to societies standards, but that doesn’t make them so according to God’s standards. If one hasn’t achieved the mystical union they aren’t great according to Gods standards and Gods standards are the only standards that truly matter.
Then it's not just due to a definition.
Who is positing something nonspatial? You're saying that materialists are doing this if they posit a first cause? How are you figuring that?
without quoting the Bible i would have to say for the most part you are right. Why i believe the Bible is right is a whole another forum topic.
you should be a Christ, not a Christian.
if you saw my profile or clicked on my name you would realize thats not the case. As you may know an online forum is a bad place to realize someone's character. Online forums are best for discussing concepts and facts. I do appreciate the compliment and i do think your philosophy is a step up from post modernism. On the other hand we can only make decisions on what we have been nurtured with and we in fact all have a similar nature to some measure.
It says nothing. Define “God” ... oh wait! You cannot. No doubt you’ll say that is the ‘point’?
A trinitarian unity of Absolute Memory, Will, and Imagination. Of course, to be self aware, one need only use their will and imagination to reference the past, and this process is beyond space and is therefore occurring within a self-referential point. It’s very simple.
Not quite sure that “beyond space” means anything other than by metaphor. We cannot imagine something beyond something beyond space or something atemporal. We can use abstractions that are applicable - knowable - referentially to space and time.
Universal items, such as “as,” “one” and “and” cannot be presented to sensibility in a pure form. They can only be understood by us in reference to items in space-time though. That is not to say these abstract concepts exist “beyond time and space” in a literal sense. To suggest such is to misunderstand how language captures cognitive thought.
Quoting I like sushi
it means the non-local aspect of reality which is not atemporal, but a subset of Absolute Time, i.e. the persistence of the essence of existence itself. we know that information (concepts) is without spatial dimension, we know that concepts exist, so a non-spatial aspect to reality must exist. why? because the non-spatial cannot be a subset of the spatial, it must be the other way around.
Quoting I like sushi
the can be presented in the intuition as a concept, their pure form lies in the intuition of the essence of the concept itself, in both the relative and absolute sense. oneness is the persistence of the existence of the self-awareness of God, and when we intuit our own existence as such, we are partaking in oneness with the absolute. you don’t need the intellect, or space for this, only time, will, and memory. space and objects in space just limit/expand the potential concepts that we can conceive of, and use as a conceptual starting point to Will from.
You can just as easily argue the reverse and come to the opposite conclusion - meaning that the non-spatial is a subset of the spatial known by us as beings living, knowingly, in reference to space and time NOT because we’re ‘other-than’ the world we’re part of.
You seem to be happy to talk of some one/whole yet disregard this when it doesn’t fit your argument. How do you deal with that contradiction?
In addition: time is impossible without space - I’m not just talking physically because you cannot think of items without space, time or substance. They are integral to thought.
That's very incoherent rather.
the mind has a dual aspect, one part of the is I’m space, the content of perception, and the other is outside of space looking in, hence the reason man can look down upon relative space and time as an object. if there is no aspect to the mind outside of space, man cannot have free will and all of his wills are merely links in a physical chain of causation extending backwards in time to infinity.
it’s how you use this non-spatial aspect of your mind to say that there is no such thing and contradict yourself all while telling me that my correction conception of the mind is contradictory.
what’s incoherent is your entire philosophy. the man who holds that all is changing all the time except change itself, and also that there is no such thing as unchanges wants to talk about coherent beliefs, how ironic...your opinion has not no value, but negative value because all of us become less intelligent by reading your posts.
It [s]does[/s] doesn’t exist. That is the point. You CANNOT think without reference to space, time and matter/substance. Remove any one of these and you’re left with nothing comprehensible/rational/logical/thinkable - just like you cannot image a shape with no form or a sound with no tone.
Just to further clarify ... A ‘non-spatial point’ is NOT a ‘point’. It is like suggesting there is a ‘non-distance’ whose length can be measured.
you’re committing a fallacy here, that just because this applies to the part that it applies to the whole.
a non-spatial point is just an abstract set
There is no explicit fallacy it what I’ve said.
Note: I meant “doesn’t exist” btw
I understand it’s logical application within a space-time-substance frame. Outside of the frame ... well, there is nothing I can say about “outside” because for me there is no ‘outside’ of space-time-substance.
"Change itself" isn't a thing that's changing or not.
you only need the continuation of your own memory set, imagination, and will, to intuit the existence of the concept of unity. all of those things are non-spatial, so one can thinking non-spatially. however, the concepts that one an thinking about are primitive, at least, in the beginning. in imagination there can exist imaginary space, just the same as in the absolute sense.
prove it.
Empirical claims are not provable. Science methodology 101.
don’t you mean non-empirical claims?
how are we supposed to know if change itself is changing or not changing, or rather, can become non-existent or not?
No.
The difference in your view is?
So you can't do a definition, just ambiguous examples?
Empirical claims can not be proven period. Again, you'd learn this in Science Methodology 101 should you ever take it. So all empirical claims can not be proven by means of empirical evidence.
I didn't claim that change itself is doing anything. I said that change itself isn't a thing to do anything or not.
Your still talking in spatial-temporal-substance terms. As you must. Simply saying they are not doesn’t make it so. Unity exists as a concept due to plurality. All you’re doing here is reiterating Kant’s categories and he NEVER made a positive claim for noumenon - his argument was against noumenon in a positive sense. ‘Hamburgers’ phenomenon not noumenon btw
Even the term ‘abstract’ should be enough to make this clear. What is ‘abstract’ is abstracted from experience.
Surely you’ve heard this before: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant”
You may be better served elucidating your thoughts by offering a refutation of this quote from Kant. I assume you’ve read The Critique of Pure Reason. If not I am sure there is a lot in there you’d find useful - positively and/or negatively.
I don't see why it's the same principle at all. I mean you might want to say, as the transcendental idealist does, that yellow, numbers and change have no reality beyond the human mind, but what does that mean exactly? That these things are not sensible objects? Well, of course that is trivially true, and the appropriate response would be 'So what?'.
And as to whether these things are real independently of human (or animal?) experience, well, that's a matter of how you want to define them and what exactly you mean by "real".
I'm saying that there are concepts which don't necessitate space at all, and therefore do not necessitate objects either, like, for example, the concepts of identity (unity) and difference and also number, and therefore all the laws of logic and mathematics, as well, which are, the fundamental languages by which all languages necessarily abide. The only thing necessary for these concepts to be intuited and therefore known is, as Kant would say, the 'unity of apperception' or rather, the awareness of the continuation in existence of ones own being; through the ability to create sub-center's of self-awareness within imagination, that is, 'imaginary space,' and will from them simultaneously or alternatively, and the existence of absolute memory, the dialectical process of consciousness was made possible. what is abstract, except for the eternal laws of logic which contain all abstract thoughts, minds, and things, are products of abstraction and therefore experience, but experience, that is, awareness and conceptual objects of awareness, are not predicated of material things.
Hopefully all this will at least make you see how much you haven’t said in your document.
memory is the solution to Russell's Paradox, memory formulates the ground of being itself. It is not in space. Memory is temporal but not spatial.
Firstly, I establish the nature of the absolute context and then use that context to give meaning to relative facts; while philosophers today, and you, who seem to think that they're rational, don't even try to establish the essence of the absolute context in which we live, and therefore fail to compare empirical facts to it to make sure that the meaning that they give to them doesn't contradict the absolute truth which concerns the essence of the absolute context. My philosophy involves, first and foremost, establishing the nature of the absolute context. In doing so, I am able to give proper meaning to empirical truths.
You don’t, and haven’t, explained why. What does this mean? Point being you should perhaps listen to the comments of those that read what you write and tell you it is not clear enough. For what it’s worth ‘memory’ is spatial because it has to operate with some spatial reference ... this I’ve already stated loud and clear by saying that space-time-matter/substance are what constitutes ‘intuition’. Meaning NONE of these are meaningful without the others (refer back to Kant’s quote above). Saying “but it’s not!” isn’t a refutation of Kant’s point and/or my point. Maybe you don’t refute this? That would still beg the question how you could consolidate what you’re saying to it though.
I don’t know what you’re saying and when I ask you seem to act like the reader is to blame all the time. Consider for a second that you may not have have used the best terms available and/or that you’ve not given definitions for items you deem explicit but others don’t.
The whole thing has holes.
Of course it's real. It's just not a "thing itself" that can then change or not.
Understand that the person who posted the OP is declaring themselves some kind of genius. If they are they lack basic courtesy and presume idiocy and/or argumentation whenever question or asked for clarification.
The lack of “good faith” begins with the person who made the OP playing the victim, refusing to listen to genuine critique as anything other than an attempt to defame, and setting themselves up for a fall by declaring how they’ve solved some logical problem (via mysticism).