Section 54 (last updated 02.25.2021)
Definition of “situation”
(Add what I mean by event, needle)
The way series of possible events congregate to form an event
1:35:00 Descartes defines “situation” as opposing forces whose commonality is the reference they share to each other. The thing they share is their reference to each other. A situation is an object whose the common reference is other objects. When there is a situation, we normally think there is an overbearing circumstances entities find themselves in and this is called a state of affairs. But the circumstance is always linked to a particular object in the series which the bunch exhibits state of affair in relation towards.
Dependent being- if my being is dependent on god, god is the cause of my capacity to doubt because god is where this capacity is not dependent on me as the author of it. (mediations 1:54:00) how do I still exists in the moment coming?
The infinite is arrived at by negating finites. Infinity in this way is prior and contains the finite.
1:38:45
Descartes meditates whether his ideas are in objects independent of what he identifies as objects of his ideas, arrives at “Ideas of material falsity” which arises when nothing is represented as if it is something. For example, the ideas of heat and cold are so far from being clear and distinct because it is unclear as to whether cold is the privation of heat or heat is the privation of cold, the question of whether they are qualities or not.
These common optical illusions illustrate example wherein the same object, the lamp looking shape in the middle, constitutes the same form for both faces while separating the faces into two . This is what Hegel means by when he says that the distinction is what is shared by the opposition” (find actual quote). The ability to make distinction is capacity to pick out differences among presented objects, but this is only because the distinction is itself an object.
This is how the distinction is what is shared by the inverse opposing determinations.
These kinda illusory artworks are popular because they portray the order of simultaneity and instantaneity in nature. Instead of the manor the women forming the face of the other man or the women, the real situation is that cells forming the face are their own organisms on one dimension, on the other dimension they are the skin of the face.
The distinctions between stuff is an object that gives other things form and derives its own form from the others it distinguishes. The distinction is the feature of the particular is a special kind of object not by being any specified this or that object but is the probability of any potential object. When looking at an object we see the content of its details by perceiving its distinction in contrast to another object. In other words the object not directly looked at serves as the distinction outlining the form of the object directly looked at.
Form within form
The study of Form is the science of generation as Self-creation
The idea that the nature of being is to self-create has historically been a difficult notion to accurately explain. The monotheistic creation story provides an example of the human understandings grabbling with idea that the universe is created. We are accustomed to think that A being external from B creates it into being. In order to build a house I require my body outside of the raw material that bring it into construction.
What we often do not realize is the principle of non-duality implicit in the external relations of separate objects. My bringing the house into being is done in spacetime, the indivisible principle of the two former external relations. For example, there is nothing outside of space but there is only an outside of something in space, the principle of space functions as the external entity, that wherever there is some activity of time, space is the dimension external to that, which in other words, is what contains it. Space is the object of time.
The primary ontological concept for explaining what is meant by self-creation is philosophically known as the dialectic. According to Hegel, the dialectic is the primary principle of life and is the basis for activity. The dialectic as an ontological principle generally proposes that the substance of being is engaged in self-reflection. Aristotle notices this all the way back in the Ancient times as the “thinking about thinking”.
In modern terms, we recognize this in our own psychological framework. Individually we are constantly engaged in dialogue with our selfs concerning our conscious applications of the unconscious processes of the psyche. In one sense we are constantly talking with our selfs. We think in language and act out these thoughts. But the dialectic has a deeper meaning than this psychological implication.
The kind of self-thinking described by the dialectic is responsible for acting out reality itself, and our own self-dialogue is the prototype towards the development of self-conscious reason of this. Thought is the basis activity of generation as forming or formation. What we mean by something coming into being is preceding described by form. Form is synonymous with activity such that the coming into existence of something identified by the mind as object is invariable.
The form of matter being indivisibility is dialectical principle suggesting among many things the fact that the activity of thought is the model form for the thought about it. This means that the being of substance is activity of thought because thought is reason in the first sense of the determination of some goal and the means to attain it. The investigation of Reason commences as activity towards some goal otherwise the second definition being the system to attain it is in this way unnecessary. System is principle according to which something is done.
System is method
is the content of system the only way that some aim is attained because order is the consciousness of the aim, since as even the disorder of itself is recognition of what it is not, consciousness as the factor of aim is its reality principle.
As aforementioned the activity towards some aim is rational and in this way exhibits form. In the nature of form as structure exists the potential recognition for another form. Form exhibits the structure of system as the negations of inverse variables working against each other to form the whole of each. Thought is the activity of form because its self-negations constitutes it into differentiated variabilities the whole of each is the contemplation that contains the material where the transformation of the conceptions expands activity of the thought.
In the very activity of thinking exists the form for the thought of that. Thinking brings with it the form that the thought is. In Geometry for example, the thought of the triangle is invariable with its form. figure with three straight sides and three angles. There is no way of conceptualizing 3 angles and 3 sides without it taking the form of a triangle, it is logical, no matter of the nature of the triangle, it will be a triangle. (on the heavens 3 is the number of bodies).
If we look into a 4 dimensional triangle, we can derive the form of a square.
The circle is the most fundamental shape is inscribed in all shapes.
The point if geometry is to show that form is identical with logic. Logic is not merely theoretical as contended by its formal application. Logic is abstract in being the activity universal of form. Logic is the self- connecting activity . The very generation of an object begins as a proposition, “if”, but not as a mere assertion but rather a relation, “if then”, “and or”. The logical form of affirmation and denying is construction of thought, which begins validity quite absurdly by merely affirming it. Something valid is simply shown or demonstrated because in that it can be judged.
P then Q
P
:.
Q
This form works inductively backwards to demonstrate the proposition. If we simply assert that P then Q, the proposition carries with it implications that if not shown can be infinite. This is why by simply affirming the antecedent we eliminate any potential implications hence the common association of modus Ponens as the rule of “implication elimination”. In one sense this is the basic law of determination it is the necessary element of detachment.
In order to detach a thought from thinking, unlike an object from some other object, like a branch from a tree org of which are separate, in the case of thought the idea cannot be assumed to be separate but must be affirmed as distinct and maintained as distinct from the rest of the activity. The way thoughts logically maintains an idea in isolation is in some sense explained by “biconditional elimination”, which allows the Inference of a conditional from a biconditional.
A conditional is the first proposition because it is the connective “if…then”, (->) if P then Q, is what requires affirming. Conditional is called the material conditional because it is true on the grounds that it is affirmed (recognized by thought) . Whereas biconditional is post affirmation in the sense that once affirmed “p if and only if q” (<->). Once established that conditional does not carry implications if and only it is affirmed, the biconditional elimination maintains what is affirmed by allowing a detachment of what is affirmed into inversion; if P<->Q is true, then bi elimination allows P->Q is true and Q->P is true. Which by showing the implications eliminated any other implications and maintains the affirmed in isolation as having shown it having no other implications therefore being itself true.
In MP we are allowed to infer P as proposition after the proposition
P->Q because the consequent Q which is also the conclusion, if is true, then one may infer that is true
And also that is true. Put simply, if P then Q is true then Q then P is also true. The latter reverse allows the proposition P to affirm the Q that affirms it in affirming it. If P affirms Q then Q affirms P to affirm Q.
This is the triangular logic because left back with P and Q now affirmed without no further implications, we have the logical biconditional of “both or neither”,
If both than each, If each then neither nor. If neither nor then each, if each then both.
P<->Q
P->Q Q->P
We have the conditional as binary
->because of <-> as unity. The binary is the inversion
(P->Q Q->P )
The inversion of the binary is the unity (P<->Q)
This is the logical form of the triangle. Right triangle is the basis of trigonometry.
Let a be p->q and b be q->p and c p<->q.
A right triangle is where the square lies. The form of one shape is implicit in the form of the other.
the latter results in the material biconditional is affirmed as being its own conditional among its own constituent conditional. negation either not P and not Q which is the square as the negation is harmonious with the positive
P then Q
Not Q
:.
Not P
In the form of the activity, there are angles that when focused on can be transformed into differing respective forms. It is in this way that we mean by the substance of being is self-creation. That self-creation is derived by the necessity of form, but not in the sense of being a mechanical necessity of picking out a part of the form and making something other using that part, but a prior (which also means more fundamentally) for that to even be capable of happening, that by the very essence of the form being an activity of thought, it is thought of, produces with it the recognition, the thinking of (about), the other form for the transforming of the activity. It is quite obvious once realized that any form exhibits within its own material the capacity to be self-transformed into a different form.
(Form and activity are only thought and reason, that is what activity is, we cannot see activity, we can see objects moving, but what moves the object we cannot see, for the object itself
is motion, we cannot see because activity is purely abstract of reason, and yet it is responsible for creating and maintaining what we take to be “real” concrete objects, for they are real insofar as they are forms perceived of activity of thought, like the square is,
But the movement where in the triangle we find the square, and therefore we have now the form of a square, is the same way objects come into being, for the very consciousness of them creates them, like the square created in the triangle. But here we run into the problem of infinite regress because we say that we derive the square from the triangle so long as we already presuppose the presence of the triangle. But this counter-supposition misses the mark because the application of the infinite regress as a critical point is only valid in due consideration of content.
Content takes the recognized form and groups them into distinct objects, and the infinite regress of this states that what object is before? Is the chicken before the egg, if so what is before the egg? And this can go on to infinity, for we can always point out some other prior object. But whereas this infinite regress poises logical problems in the context of the content of the activity, it at the same time presents itself as logically resolving in the application to the form of the activity. In form, the infinite regress is resolving because it suggest that prior to any object there exists the recognition of that object as prior. In other words, the objects that constitute the content of the activity of thought presuppose the thought as the form of the content.
That in every object exists a prior consciousness. If we regress back to the last object and we say that this object is now first because it is that taken prior to everything as the definition of regress inductively suggests, then what is prior to it is its form, which is the consciousness of it as being the kind of object that it is. That if the object is nothing, then its form is the recognition that it is nothing, but in that form the regress is not negative as being a dead end, but is positively contradictory, that the form of nothing is that it is also something, an object, an in that form of that object is the form for another object and we positively progress to the very point that we began to regress from the content of the objects. )
The question becomes whether the transformation of the form looses itself and becomes entirely the other form. But why should it? Unless we categorize the transformation into “old” form and “new” form and exclude the existence of former for the occurrence of the latter. But this is entirely a due process of the understanding. The act of reason portrays that the full transformation of past form into the future form exhibits the same formal continuity,
That the triangle being in the square is no less there once it is recognized, is the same to say that the transformations of form is really a change of consciousness concerning the very same object, but what is same in the object is the difference in it that renders the change of consciousness the activity of thought. The object is what is what the activity of thought forms. The object is the experience of the form.