Forms are possible events
Is there form of feces?
section 20 (last updated 1.4.2021)
Is there a Form of feces?
In the common interpretation of the monotheistic religions like in Judaism and Islam conflating oneself with God is a grave sin. This has been made less so in Christianity because we see the embodiment of god in Christ, that Christ is the ideal of man, and men should behave more like Christ, their standard for action is the ideal of man, Christian people often say:“what would Jesus do?”. Nevertheless in these relatively new religions there is a strict division between god and man. In the older religions like in Hinduism, any embodiment in nature is identified as a form that god takes, and so when a man comes out and says “ I am god” in the Hindu or Buddhist religions, he is congratulated as finally achieving enlightenment, recognizing what he truly is. (Alan watts) while in the monotheistic religions, he is punished and condemned for spoiling the ultimate nature of god to a limitation of it. However some truer interpretations of Christianity say that Jesus never claimed to be god over other people but the true essence of his teachings is to find the divinity found within the individual – God, the holy spirit, and the son- are all universal ingredients of every man with God being the universal side, the spirit being the soul or the mind, and the son being the matter, the body and the flesh.
Notion of consciousness not yet in Aristotle
(Add Aristotle from thesis whole and parts that heart is not essential because it is dependent on other things tokeep going. Growth vs creation, heart is created, man as whole is growth. One limitation of Aristotle’s greatest philosophy is the importance of the changing reference as related to the universal principles of logic. Aristotle establishes that the universal forms of Plato are active in the natural processes. Aristotle eludes to the ultimate principle that thought is the active substance where the objective principles of logic are simultaneously the objects of nature, but Aristotle’s philosophy stops short in explaining how thought determines the rigidity of universal principles to compensate the flux of sensible objects.
The notion of consciousness has not yet emerged in the Ancient Greek times as characteristic of thought. Hegel advances the Ancient idea of thought by characterizing consciousness as its spirit, its active energy. Thought in the Ancient times was missing the concept of consciousness. The importance of consciousness situates thought in the observer, in the ancient times thought was in everything, which is certainly true in that things exhibit rational principle, physical objects are communicable by shared logical structures, but in what sense is there an individual form encompassing thought as an acting and willing freedom is only merely hinted at by Aristotle’s concept of rational animal. The human being in Aristotle is still not an individual but is rational animal as species, product of nature, but in what sense is the human goes beyond the determination of nature and inversely determines it constitutes the course of consciousness. Hegel makes the connection between the ancient notion of thought with the modern conception of consciousness, the latter being the spirit of the former, the personality of how thought conceived itself. Thought is no longer ambiguous substance being everywhere but that everywhere is encompassed in an individual character within it. In this way there is a point within the universe that constitutes its change, The alteration in consciousness constitutes the change of the object.
This is the way consciousness conceives thought.
is perspective from top-down view as in the case of abstract thinking conceiving general notions applicable to particular scenarios, you have a general principle which is abstract that is observable in concrete different kind of particular things, like the angle is observer in all objects with corners; or from the inside-out as in the way of perception looking out to pick out the details of object, you see a bunch of objects with a common feature, their angles, and abstract that feature as universal in them. In the second case the pointing out of details pertaining to particular nature of objects relates back to initiation of it from kind of intention that knows what to look for and recognizes what it finds. (The object is the bare substratum in particular manner, not any specific particular manner, but the state of being in particular manner. Being in particular manner is universal to all things pointed out as different)
Things are angles
(Connect with first dimension)
You can think that angles are not part of things but rather things are just angles. In fact mathematicians look at the world in this way.
When we say the angle is common feature, it is not feature that belongs as an attribute, like a horn on a rhino, but rather any scene is full of angles, they are the layout, as Plato says, objects share in the Form of the concept. There is first a concept fundamentally present, then particular variations of it are laid out on a plain over it, as if it is being traced by them.
When looking at this bundle of sticks, you can say that the angles which can be derived by the spaces between them is just a random result of the stock, each cross crossing and overlapping each other, however all these patterns of angles that the sticks “randomly” seem to express in their bundle; are actual geometric relation that can be extrapolated out from the pile of sticks, remove the pile, and maintain the geometry to be applicable to another pile of different objects, like pins or needles.
The differences between the individual members in the same species produce immediate interactions. For example, the asymmetrical structure of one plant begins to infringe on another by virtue of one being taller than the other. The interactions between life forms create the immediacy for living things to maintain their unique structure as an individual member belonging to the species. (On the Soul.II.3.Smith)
When two branches intercept and there is a triangular opening between them, that very shape is the same form which conceives within it different objects.
“Real” having properties
Whenever we perceive an object its idea is invariably perceived into the mind as an experience. Pierce continues: “idea”- nearer Plato’s idea […] denotes anything whose Being consists in its mere capacity for getting fully represented, regardless of any person’s faculty or impotence to represent it”. Every object in nature has an idea belonging to it. For example, the idea of a table is that it has a flat surface with wooden legs and this is also it’s function which is based on the idea of supporting objects off the ground. Included in the idea of a table there are more general forms like certain geometric figures such as equilateral right angles and triangular shapes.
The term “real”, according to Pierce, is a word “to signify having Properties, i.e., characters sufficing to identify their subject, and possessing these whether they be anywise attributed to it by any single men or group of men, or not”
Forms and matter real and unreal
The forms are considered as being “in” something else, which Plato called nature (physis).
The notion of “reflection” in the theory of the Forms is interesting because the physical objects, or what Plato calls the “sensible objects” mimic the Forms, but that gives them the implication that they are not real. However this is an extreme interpretation because although the material objects are not as “real” as the Forms, they are still real in the sense of being “reflections” of the forms, they are not “original”.
The term “reflection” is poorly defined as the “throwing back” of an object off the surface of another object, for example like light off a surface of a body without being absorbed. The throwing back describes the action of something being reflected but does not define what is reflection because The other definition of reflection has a similar but different definition, meaning to think and pounder about something, to archive it, bring it back forth into the mind, as is done by memory. Reflection is therefore a motion and it is not an abstraction like an image is reflected by a mirror.
The weakness of Plato’s idea of the Forms is the inability to explain how the physical objects are not as real as the Forms. Plato explains how the Forms constitutes reality instead of the material objects because matter is always changing and degenerating while the Forms are unchanging things. However it is not clear how the permanency of a thing determines the element of being more real because substance can be permanently in constant change, and it can be eternal in that sense. But the aspect of maintaining a single identity for eternity is said to be more permanent than the aspect of constantly changing for eternity because the latter has to go through a series of intermediary steps that are assumed to be not identical with itself to get to a point where it returns back to itself, while in the former it maintains what it is throughout and therefore is longer in duration of its identity as compared to the constant change that only at points of returns to itself that it bears its self identity.
In the above illustration, which is the abstraction of the other?
In the first case we do not have a series and therefore there is no pattern, infer that the next block after the red is green based on the fact that the red comes after the green. Whereas when we have a series we also have a pattern which confirms that after green comes red and after red comes green because there is multiplicity of these pairs which one pair can be used as the proof for the other. In the series you can have empirical knowledge that green comes after red because one pair confirms the other pairs, where in the case of only having one pair, to infer another pair cannot be done empirically but must be presupposed as an abstract truth, in both cases the truth is the same, that green comes after red and red after green.
When you change constantly back and forth, you are only half the intervals yourself, and the other half not yourself, given that there is a certain identity of one over the other, and if both are identities they are different ones if they are not to be the same. while if you maintain yourself through out means you are 100% of the time your self. Except there is difficulty in this because if it is longer to be yourself by not changing at all and less the time by changing, in the instance of no change, you are maintaining your self constantly against change, which is constantly not your self, and therefore changing is maintained against you as constantly itself, there is now a divide between two sides, one being the constant change, and the other no change, and your on the non-change side against constantly changing side or vice versa, in either case, your only half the time you could be yourself given the total time of change and no change. However with the instance of constantly changing into another than back to your self, there is more of those instances than just constantly being yourself as opposed to the other, as this single contrast is an abstraction from the alternation of the self and the other back and forth.
When you change the angle of conception you change the world
This logic which cuts off things that change into one category and non-change into another category is the problem with the distinction between real and unreal to describe a true versus a false reality. When Plato says that the Forms are more “real” than the sensible objects, means that they are more actual. The concept of actuality is different from reality on the grounds that something exhibited to us as not what it truly is can still be real in the sense that it bears existence, that appearance for example is still real as being a phenomenon except it does not elucidate what the thing really is. Implied in the idea of reality is the actuality of something which goes into an explanation into what the thing ought to be, which is what it really is, even if it is not right now. Actuality is the substance of time because implied in what a thing ought to be is a duration or process to realize this aspect that reality lacks of being at the moment. If my actuality is what I am not right now, but what I could be, this means that my potentiality is the actuality of reality, and therefore there is a movement towards that. Plato leaves unexplained how the Forms are the actuality of the sensible material objects, and therefore makes one possess reality while the other is illusory being.
Aristotle however makes a more scientific move because he says that we are certainly confronted with a reality that is not what it appears to be, or rather, what appears bears something that explains the appearance, and is therefore the source of its knowledge. Appearance in this sense means phenomenology, the study of the object of perception; what the senses or the mind notice. Aristotle explains that when an object is observed through the senses, the mind notices a continuum from one object to the next even though both appear drastically different. This is abstracted into the material substrate. This material substrate is the reality that the mind and the senses are confronted with. But instead of calling it illusory being like Plato, Aristotle explains that the material substrate on its own does not constitute the actuality of a thing because it does not explain the essential nature of the object, the wall, the desk and the tree are all material, but that does not explain what makes them distinct from each other. Aristotle introduces the idea of “form” in a different way than Plato’s idea of the “Forms”, because Plato makes the Forms into a place called the true reality and actuality of the illusory realm we know as the material realm, however we are directly confronted with the material realm, and to separate its actual realm into an independent place makes knowledge of that impossible. So Aristotle took the idea of “form” as the true and essential realm in the material. Form is the actuality of the material substrate because it explains its “function”, which is what it is meant to do, in other words, is the activity of the thing, it’s duration in time, it’s time sequence, all the possible and potential moments that make it up.
The matter that makes something up just simply captures and discloses a moment at the present. What it means to be a “present” is the alignment of an abstract form with a concrete substrate. The concrete substrate we term “matter” is not something separate that comes along side the abstract which is called its “form”. They are simultaneous but the matter constitutes the concrete side of the abstract because it is the point of contact between two forms, this moment of contact brings about a “contradiction” between the forms which does not mean a “mistake” but rather makes a perplexity or a “complex”, this complex is the link between two forms that are different in structure that come to make a new structure. When two forms come into contact, they form a structure and each develop feeling, sensation, thought of the other. Moments are happening, moving along in time, like a stream, and they move through the matter, structuring it as they go along while matter yielding this structure which is felt, experienced and sensed. However the way the physical structure is sensed and experienced may exhibit an altogether different reality than the way the physical structure comes to yield a form.
For example, if we take how a Helicase so called “breaks” down the hydrogen bond and how the understanding formulated that, we see how in our concepts there is the influence of knowledge derived from sensation in congruency with purely abstract knowledge like geometric and logical, I.e., “sharpness” of a triangle.
(see different levels of physicality) Abstract things whether we call it ideas, objects, activities exhibit an altogether different nature of physicality than the objects perceived and sensed. The objects we perceive are interpreted to exhibit certain feelings by sensations like the angle of a triangle is interpreted to be sharp, like a bunch of rocks are hard and rugged, Allan watts calls it “prickly”.
a helicase is illustrated as exhibiting the abstract form of a triangle to define the enzyme that unwinds the double helix. But the helicase is no more triangular than curved in its nature, and no more curved than rugged from a closer and more concrete outlook.
this above image is a more accurate illustration of the helicase molecule because reality is not as elementary as a triangle and involves a complexity of ridges and angles, and so a “sharp” compound must be able to divided on every angle, on all sides, this is why a rock for example is not just a square or a triangle, but complex of all shapes. This is really what it looks like but our understanding of it makes it triangular for the abstraction that it is sharp. We explain that the helicase “unwinds” a DNA chain, with this image, it is implied that a helicase is a distinct object on its own, a separate molecule, that comes into direct contact with a DNA double helix and unwinds it, breaks it apart, like an object separating two other objects from each other. This mechanical manner is of the interaction is not exactly accurate because it is not entirely clear at this molecular level whether an enzyme like a helicase actually constitutes a distinct and separate object from the DNA double helix, or whether our understanding recognizes distinct parts of an abstract phenomenon and categorizes them into distinct abstraction, and based on this distinctness in recognition we relate them as separate objects that externally come to interact with one another, just like how we observer objects in our ordinary experience as separate objects coming into external contact maintaining their own.
However these objects taken independent from the interpretation of sensations exhibit more of an abstract feel to each other, this means that the way they interact and break down each other exhibit more of a geometric nature. The senses interpret objects to elicit certain feelings is by no means arbitrary and is based on how geometric shapes affect each other, for example an object like a triangle is perceived as sharp and therefore brings a fast and extensive amount of pain because it is able to rip through more curved objects like skin cells, so the body maintains a higher degree of alert on objects that can quickly break its structure down so it can maintain its form and not loose it and therefore pain is this trigger of maintaining the organism intact against objects that can quickly separate its structure. However as to whether the helicase is a distinct object going to work on a DNA double helix might be a reverse of the process. Instead the double helix may perhaps be a continua stream of events that compliant together compiling in a bunch and this cluster we call the helicase. In other words, the double helix
Hegel later on in modern thought, made the difference between what is real and what is illusory as not merely the difference between a world of appearance and a true world behind that, but rather defined the substance of the world as divided into a “particular and universal”, both of which bear the qualities of the proper relation of the world. The world is not a division between real and unreal but is the “relation between the universal and the particular”. This distinction is the dynamical manner which consciousness unfolds through time. An example of this is the way the understanding makes abstractions of the world so as to achieve reason of it. When the faculty of perception observes an object and the understanding notices in that object a distinct quality, feature, attribute etc., like an angle derived from a corner of a doorway, the understanding abstracts that corner away from the doorway and noticed that angle is also present among other objects, like the edges of a desk, someone elbow etc., there are numerous objects exhibiting the nature of an angle in a particular way.
At this point the understanding can either fail and relapse into opinion or succeed and proceed into reason, which is knowledge of universal truth. The understanding fails when upon extrapolating the angle from an object, it mistakenly asserts that the angle is an attribute and a feature of the object, and it is the object that is real, and the angle is merely a theoretical and mental model used to describe it’s parts. In this way a universal principle is denied any reality based on the factor that it participates in the particular used to derive it. The understanding proceeds into reason when that angle is properly taken as a universal principle, meaning that it is a form that all these particular objects are partaking in. This does not merely mean that there is an ultimate angle that each object is mimicking, nor does it mean that because the angle is in each object, it is more real since it is the most prevalent, but rather when the observer changes and shifts their consciousness which than discloses a change in the objects it observers and the kind of way the objects are observed they were one shape from one angle, now they are another shape from another, we are now beginning to notice that underlying all these objects are a fundamental geometry, the form of all things, or rather the possibility of any single form, constitutes the underlying structure of the material substrate. That beneath the depth of each object, there are universal, eternal, and specific kind of relations, that when there is a shift in conception, which is simply what motion is, motion is defined here as a natural way of conception change, whether that is observed as an external object shifting form or changing location, or whether the internal perspective disclosing the same homogeneous continuum changes perspective to disclose another homogeneous continuum, both are different way for the same phenomenon. these universal relations take on particular configuration.
(see defects of the understanding)
According to Plato, Socrates admits it is impossible to know the world of ideal Forms. The idea of the Form in Plato is described by a series of contradictory claims about how it might be described.
On the one hand, Forms do not exist within any time period, they do not exist forever in the sense a thing exists for all time, nor mortal of limited duration, both these actually mean the same because for a single thing to exist for all time or for a certain duration of time, just means that time is limited to what that thing is. And so if all thing exists for all time, than that looses its distinction as all things because all things consist of each different thing, and to categorize an infinite amount of distinct things into the same category of being “all”, then we are left with a unity of what they are as a single thing, all things is still a single abstraction, and so all things cannot exists for all time because than all time is limited to the duration of the abstraction of all things, it is entirely transcendent to time altogether. Forms also have no spatial dimensions, no orientation in space, like a location, distance, extension etc., because if they have spatial extension they would have figure and content and that makes the form into an object, and therefore limited to that the form to be different must occupy the same space but in different orientation, and so it is infinitely in the same spot
Forms are perfect and unchanging representations of objects and qualities.
These above points are contradicted by these latter points.
true knowledge is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one’s mind.
every object or quality in reality has a form. the object was essentially or “really” the Form and that the phenomena are mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances
It is a mistake to say that the Forms is a place apart from this world occupying somewhere else’s because the forms do not occupy a space.
Forms are “not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself,” (Symposium 211b). This means that the Forms are not parts of objects, they are not attributes. Plato says that “Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is one thing,” (52a Timaeus)
Yet
Our world is modeled after the patterns of the Forms. The function of humans in our world is therefore to imitate the ideal world as much as possible
Plato idealism of the Forms does not explain how the material world is a so called reflection of the forms, but this is because we are attempting to think of the Forms in terms of an object, we make the strong division between form which is one thing, and object which is another, both of which are beside each other and we are trying to compare them, which is an already flawed attempt. Plato does very much explain how the idea of Form explains change.
, forms are an abstract basis the possibility of which is infinite, and so change for Plato is simply an infinite reiteration of the same singular model, which is in and of itself not anything in specific, nor is it everything. Form is a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. So such that anything exists, and anything can exists, it will carry with it the Form as its nature, in the sense that the object has enumerable possible scenarios, events, and possible actions.
the forms are timeless and unchanging, physical things are in a constant change. This does not necessarily mean that the same thing is becoming different like degenerating into the opposite of itself, not being, but constant change is part of the dynamics of nature as an object for conception. For example when you turn your head, the angles, colours, smells, of the same room changes, the geometry of the room changes but the identity of it remains the same, the same world is in constant change with any micro shift in action and conception.
While you may think of an idea, like love, beauty, or triangle or circle, the mind changes in respect to thinking them or lack of thinking them, but they always remain true but as truth they are not anything in specific yet they bear the capacity for an identity such that when you recognize instances of the idea, the idea is referenced as the concept of the instances, when you see someone hugging, you say that’s love, but as to what love is, it is not a mere hug or a kiss or a feeling or even the deepest relationship, it is the ideal of all these, non of them, but an infinity of them, the possibility of them such that if any one instance of them is conceived all the other ones follow as part of the ideal of the idea. A universal Form is an ideal of an idea in the sense of disclosing an infinite possibilities ordered in a qualitative hierarchy of value concerning the characterization of a single and distinct instance of them. The form of a hierarchy is physical.
(Like a crystal turning, diamond rotating image)
Materialist account of change as opposed to forms
The materialist explain change as the transformation in the objects physical state, that for example the banana is solid outside the stomach and becomes more liquid when inside the stomach because it’s structure is broken down by heat which melts it etc., solid changes to liquid, and liquid changes to gas. However the result of this change is that the banana is not identifiable as banana once it’s physical state is changed, it now becomes protein. The materialist doctrine of change does not explain how the physical stature of the object is related to its identity, it only notices two abstractions at different points in time that are meditated by a set of conditions that lead to the difference in the states found in one abstraction over the other. And so under certain conditions one object entirely changes its identity, when heat is applied to solid, it melts into liquid. In this picture we have a set of variants that are different in physical structure, like heat, an ice cube, and water, and when you apply them to each other under certain sequence you get one change as the result of the other. In other words apply heat to an ice cube and you get water. The problem is that this observation does not really explain why water is the result of heat being applied to ice, we can say that heat breaks down the molecular structure necessary for ice to sustain solidity, but it does not why water comes to be the result, only that water has the same broken down structure that heat may cause upon ice. this does not explain how one state is in the capacity of the other?
How does a solid become liquid, because if we take the empirical account literally, than we cannot assume there to be a liquid based on previous observation because than that would be held as an ideal from the past to the current structure at the present, and so only what is perceived as the state during the present of the object can be said to describe it. otherwise any other state is an ideal and the aim for the process of change that cannot be empirically and directly derived, only what is apparent during the present is empirically derived .
If in one moment the state is solid, it is not directly obvious that liquidity is implicit in solidity, unless the object is studied carefully under microscope, or under certain conditions when we see an ice cube in the process of melting etc., which involves a duration of time that brings that state out of the other. when it turns into full water, it becomes not obvious how it was once a fully solid ice cube, although we can still derive that liquidity exhibits some solidity, that it maintains an intact homogeneous structure for a time being distinct from its surrounding. What brought about that sense of liquidity, or in the other example, the banana is a completely different object outside the stomach than it is inside the stomach, the banana entirely looses its identity of a banana once it enters the stomach and it is digested to become proteins for the body. The empirical account says that the object just changes, which makes the previous state cease to be, and it’s reemergence, is explained to be a different manner, that one banana eaten dispenses for good and is now food, but there are other bananas that grow and so on and so forth.
The mere change in the structure of the banana into the protein does not explain how once that protein is implicit part of the structure of the banana. it is not obvious at all how the protein structures is in it from the mere perceivable identity of the banana. the protein constitutes a different dimension of the banana, so that when the banana looses its perceivable identity from a certain position of looking at it, either by magnifying it, or changing it by digestion, this change actually enters upon that implicit potential of the banana, and turns it into the actual state of the present moment, while the banana that once occupied the actual state, becomes implicit in its protein as their potential state.
The banana in the protein and the protein in the banana
– the potential in the other
It is not obvious how the proteins of a banana combine together to form the banana we see because it is not obvious from the side of just looking at a banana that it is made of microscopic protein structures, and it is not obvious from the side of going microscopically in the banana and seeing how the proteins combine together to form the bigger picture that is the banana.
The relation of the microscopic and macroscopic inform how potentiality and actuality interact to constitute reality, which is a real moment at the present. Macro and micro form the infinitesimal continues passage often nature. In this sense size somewhat determines the potential into real, or the potentials of the real, relative to the observer. In other words, how a potential of an object comes to be its reality is determined by the place it occupies in an infinitesimal continuum of nature meditated by the observer. For example, if a lipid bodily excretion is examined outside the body in the elements, like if I spit out saliva onto a concrete wall, the following change is examined; first the saliva is liquid but over the course of several minutes, it begins to dry and crystallize. The once liquid goo of saliva now turns into a crystallized dry scans of fatty lipid flakes. This change seems normal because when a liquid is left out, it begins to dry due to the air either by evaporation or it solidified into its more solid compounds. Our intuitive understandingly of this change from liquid to solid due to air does not explain the change it just recognizes that there is a change that has taken place.
On some level when we say a liquid has evaporated, this means that liquid molecules became influenced by gas molecules either by being dispersed enough to no longer being able to maintain the compactness necessary for liquidity, or they become carried away by gas and the liquid molecules now join the gas molecules. In either of these circumstances it still remains unexplained what happened to the liquid molecules that are at one point present, but now they disappear after the change. We cannot take for granted the disappearance of something after it change into some other state without explaining to what happened to the state that just changed.
The explanation is that degree of the magnitude of the state changed such that liquidity still remains prevalent in gas but at a more microscopic level. When one state becomes macro, the other state goes into micro. This is like a tuning, like turning the volume up or down, but in terms of size, when a liquid dries out, it goes down into a microscopic state, and a more solid state is automatically composed of that and comes out into the more macroscopic state observable by the observer.
The wet is in the solid as a possible event and the solid is in the wet as a possible event.
The liquid is potentially in the solid by being infinitesimally small in it, and the solid is potentially in the liquid by being infinitesimally small in it. In other words the potential state occupies a microscopic dimension of magnitude in the other thing at the macroscopic dimension of magnitude. And one potential state comes out when the other real state goes in.
(see solid, liquid gas ice cube)
This is a tesseract shape and it is the geometric variant defines what we mean when we say something is squared, or cubic squared. One object is squaring the other, means that when one occupies the present conception of the observer, the other enters implicitly into the other, one object serves as the dimension for the other object, they are each other’s dimension. They go inside each other to make each other, When one comes up the other goes inside to make the other. From our position the proteins are inside the banana and the banana is outside the proteins, if we go inside the proteins, than banana is now outside of them, .
. All that the materialist doctrine can say is that at one point there was once a state known as a banana, and after undergoing through a set of conditions, at a different point, there is another state known as food protein in the stomach. But the banana and the protein as distinct qualities remain unconnected by the materialist doctrine as they are reduced to abstractions of the same thing, only their their quantity, the matter substrate, remains when one quality changes into the other, but as qualities it does not explain how one is even related or share in the quantity of the other, as the change in quantity makes one present when the other is not.
Aristotle critiques of the Forms is in fact an elaboration on the problems Plato himself saw with his own idea. The main issues that Aristotle and Plato saw concerns what it means for their to be an independently existing world of Forms? Plato argues that forms are abstract universal substance, meaning that their make, the substance of it is that it is abstract, just like the substance of sensible objects is matter, and matter from a less and less immediate sensible position becomes abstract substance, that is, only its basic distinct variations and these relations are tangible and not all at once felt, heard, seen etc, but either one or few of those to measure a certain physical quality, or non of the sensible faculties at all but are only apprehended by the mind. when Plato says the forms also exist independent of the objects themselves, this means they are not attributes of the object, the object under investigation is not first than comes its form, this is only how perception derives knowledge of the object. Aristotle agreed that the Forms are abstract substance but he wants to say how they relate to the objects, in other words, when we say that the Forms are not subject to a time, therefore always there or not there, and not subject to space means they are not in a specific place, they are everywhere all at once, or in no place at all, all these conditions are part of the objects condition for change.
When Aristotle argues that forms are intrinsic to the objects and cannot exist apart from them, this does not mean that the Forms are properties of objects, this is mistaken interpretation of Aristotle because he maintains like Plato that the Forms are an abstract realm , but logically, there is some kind of “layering” of the object over the forms. Plato says that the object is a limitation of the Forms but he does not explain what that means, other than the object is morally and ultimately inferior to the Forms, which is its actual nature. While Aristotle explains that the Form of the object is its limitation, meaning that it describes its quality that makes it distinct from everything else. just because the forms do not operate within time does not mean that the forms do not explain time. The Forms are eternal because they are every ideal moment The object as if takes snapshots of the Forms and limits it to moments of it, and the forms remains unaffected and independently the same, however there is an abstraction of the Forms, it’s limitation which takes on a whole new nature that is wholly dependent from the forms, this is the object, which is the view of the forms within a limited moment.
Layers
When we say the object is layered on its form, this does not mean that first, form is the outline of the object, as in the case of a figure, and second, matter is content fills it; because the figure, the outline of the thing, and the content, the matter which fills it are both the object. In geometry an object is both its figure and it’s content. thinking about form in terms of it being an objects, form as an outline is one object, while the matter of that form which fills its content is another object. Simply put every object is made out of other objects, but this is not obvious to the perception as everything seems to be its own object.
Form is something different than the static conception used to maintain the same identity of an object as it changes. Form is rather the active change the object goes through in time while maintaining the same identity.
The object is the indivisible relation between its outline and the content, while form is the infinite reiterations of the possible actions and moves this object is layer out to act on. Form includes every moment of the object.
When we see an object for example in the sky falling, it is shape shifting and changing position in its own morphology as it changes positions in space like going downward towards the earth. However we still maintain that the object remains the same. the object does not remain the same only its identity remains the same. Whenever an object moves, either changes position in space, or moves its own body, from a purely technical point of view, that object bears completely different measurements from one point to another, and without having an identity of what the object is, it is entirely different as far as its measurements goes. Yet it is that same object we say is changing because the same reference point identifies it as the same.
Forms not as merely everything but everything determined in a definite manner
There are an infinite of things that can be conceived and all these exists eternally. In one sense this is what Plato had in mind with the idea of the Forms. However Plato always associates the Form with the Good, and so there is the aspect to the Forms that makes it not merely everything as a quantity, meaning that everything that is undistinguished and all the same, but that the Forms involves the qualitative aspect of the Good, an element which distinguishes between quantities into qualities. Plato says our world is “the offspring of the good” (Republic, 508b trans. Grube), it is modelled after it. The Forms are described as “perfect”, and so a common critique is that if the Form is everything good and perfect, can there be Forms of trivial, or even bad, manners like a rock, or is there a form of feces? The form of a rock is Dimond, for feces it’s food.
In Plato’s line of thinking there is a disconnect between the Forms which are the perfect substance and the imperfect objects of matter. There is the sense in Plato that he meant to ascribe material objects as deficiencies of the Forms making one morally inferior to the other. There is certainly the sense in Plato that corruptible objects do not define actuality and that he had the sense that death is salivation of freedom from the body which brings smell, degeneration, decay, all the qualities we associate as bad over the other ones such as beauty, health, generation etc. There is the contradiction between there being the Form of beauty and things that are universally good, and this allows us to make judgments about things that are ugly and bad. But all these things that are bad still exists and if the forms are infinite how can they take into account of things opposite to the good? In other words, is there a form of feces? Aristotle solves this problem.
Aristotle agues that the forms are not independent from the physical world because one constitutes the limit of the other. Matter is really the limitation of the form to a certain duration of time, while the Forms remain independent from this limit as the limit of this limitation, an unlimited ideal . Matter is the limit of the forms and it is ultimately the uncertainty principle. This is the achievement of Aristotle as the protege to Plato, that matter is the means to experience the forms.
Matter is degenerating and corrupting but it is going through and deriving pure and perfect experiences. This means that what’s seems to be on top of the experience as the physical force, feeling of weight, the mass, and motion of objects acting in nature, are pure images that makes up the face of someone, or the idea that the sky is blue, these physical properties in themselves are imperfect combine together to exhibit a perfect and pure experience, like we can say water is just a set of hydrogen and oxygen pieces of molecular matter, but really it is a pure substance, what water is an an idea in nature is pure.
When we ask is there a form of feces? The answer is that there is nothing wrong with waste being a necessary part of energy exhaustion, it is only the experience of that waste on its own that ascribes the attitude of disgust, bad smell etc. And even these attitudes themselves are pure experiences, nothing wrong with bad smell, but it is the recognition by an observer that it is the inverse of good smell and the real danger it brings to them that it may host bacteria and so on, but again nothing wrong with bacteria, only that it has a harm on a certain system of biology. The entire existence of a limited being is to experience things as limits . This does not mean that good and bad are relative to the observer but the experiences of them by the observer is derived from one being the opposite of the other, if there is good than there is bad, that relation is pure and perfect, but the experience of one over the other is the uncertainty of the world.
The forms are the infinite possibilities of a thing, as its ideal actions, the thing is one of those actions, and therefore is the limit of its possible forms. This can be looked as probability, but probability has the sense where the possible outcomes are not real until one is determined. While the philosophical sense of potentiality in Aristotle’s account is that all the possible outcomes of something constitutes a more real existence than any one real outcome happening at the present moment, that the present is in fact on just one point of a real sequence that extended beyond its limit into one moment.
An object in motion is actualizing it’s forms — going through every moment of its time
If take motion to be the object at each moment in time occupying a different position in space, then we are assuming that an object is actualizing a series of different moments within a series of different points in space. However if we take the series of different moments within different points in space as not filled in with the variation of form that an object assumes through a duration, than the moments and points in space becomes undistinguished and therefore become an empty single potential void ready to be filled in with an action having a form.
When a drummer beats the drums he is taking on the places where if the dreams are hit in such pattern and with such frequency, than certain rhythms of sound emerge. These possible positions and combination of ways the drum can be hit are the forms of the drum, the ideal activity of drumming. The reason why it is not any possibility is because not every possibility combine to form a rational and comprehensive pattern, that requires an intention and aim, and if it is not comprehensible, than it does not exhibit form and therefore cannot be picked out by an observer, in other words, it is an impossibility, until it is possible,
Our abstractions of nature reduces it to a lifeless units of building blocks without seeing how these contribute to an experience . When we look at plant cells or mammal skin cells, we pick out the individual cell as occupying a spot in relation to a number of other cells forming a cell wall to contribute in making the overall structure of the organism, and we take the organism as the beneficiary of these structures that is the living and acting being. However we forget that each single cell in occupying that place to form a cell wall for example, is playing this roll because it is part of a bigger picture, in other words, a single cell is partaking in the experience of being skin, and skin, has feeling, elasticity, temperature, shedding and growing, it is an entire cycle of nature, Android the single cell is therefore seen as an organism in the continuum of skin as a quality, than we see it is involving a cycle, process of generating and dense grating, feeling the elements the skin comes in contact, each cell is an organism experiencing these aspects, except the skin cells are not individuals they experience it as a species. . And so while it seem that a single cell is occupying the boring position of being one small part of a larger cell, and it is just standing there like block wall, this is an abstraction, or rather one moment of the cell experiencing what it means to be skin.
All at once for one object, or one object as part of everything all at once.
Forms as potential action, if all actions are simultaneous, there is no more room for change in time, or room for space, every space is filled with an action, all is set out at once, and this is perfect, and is complete as each one has a complete body to act, not one body acting in different ways, but each action has the body fitting for its movement. This is what it means to be complete in the fullest sense, all actions have their own complete body to act them, this is not redundancy because each body is minutely doing something different, the redundancy in body does not matter as long as each action governing that changes ever slightly, and actions can never the exactly done in the same way, as irreversibility goes, any new action must take into account as part of its doing the previous action, the previous action is now part of the physical components of the newer action and so on. This is complete in the most complete sense, everything is already there before any one thing can be done.
The whole is prior to the part defines what it means for the relation to be prior to the components
Aristotle produces the logic of opposites to answer how the Forms relate to objects. The object as a finite thing has as its form its ideal, so that the form of a rock is a diamond, the form of feces is food. This provides a scientific account of the Forms because it makes them applicable in nature, that there is an ideal in nature and that is related to an inversion of itself, and any object has an ideal. the Form is the ideal of all objects, it is the pure substance of them. This provides an appropriate ethics to nature as an account of quality, that Form is a quality of the object, and this actually is the basis for an understanding of development, that every object in nature has another object as its quality, feces is food for bacteria so what is quality for that species is inverted to what is considered quality for the human species, and their relation is inverted in development that the trajectory of the development of human is more advanced than the bacteria. The feces of humans is the food for bacteria, and what is good for human is more quality than what is good for bacteria. It is important to explain how at an absolute level one thing is more quality than another, irregardless of this being a bias of the thing making the judgment.
All sports depend on the uncertainty, when a soccer player takes a corner kick he is simply placing the ball within a general area where there are a bunch of uncertainties that can happen, a goal can be scared, the ball missed, or an innumerable set of combination of these.
The events themselves involve so much complexity that other events are used as the material within the experience of one event. when I spit on the ground, we do not call my saliva an event, however it consists at a molecular level of billions of microbes and bacteria and other organic matter that even this trivial manner is an avenue of nature for an infinite series of potential events. So how can a part in one event be trivial but in another event fundamental?
Conceived here is broader than perceived because it involves all avenues of experiencing something including thought which is the most basic and primary form, and then perception which is less primary but advanced and all the other sensations, along with breathing, digesting and all the bodily functions, along with loving and hating and all the emotions,
Moments built on moments. You have to get to a moment in time. Just like going to a place downtown, you have to pass certain roads and it takes certain time to arrive there. Getting to a certain moment requires squeezing from experiences of present moments knowledge and awareness, you conceive more and therefore you arrive at a certain moment. Conception produces the room for time to pass,
Events connect to each other to form a narrative. Events is the universal currency the individual used to communicate with their self. We know the common proverb, wisdom is knowledge derived from experience, we learn from experience.
(Add to fields of genetics is piece of spacetime)
Deviation
The relation of consciousness and experience, or thought and object, is marked off by process of deviation, thought deviates from it’s object, the experience deviates from consciousness . Deviation involves a reference frame and an object disclosed within that reference, and the relation is that the object is in motion and the reference frame is keeping up with that movement by constantly enclosing it.
where ever the point goes, the square follows its movements always enclosing it. In this simplistic model there is a clear division between the reference frame which is characterized by the square and the object which is characterized by the point. The reference frame has a distinct form different than the object. For this reason this illustration is not exactly an accurate demonstration but is only meant to provide a measure of how the object is conceived. For example, in the simple illustration the future motion of the object (yellow point) can be predicated based in its current motion, in other words, the way the object constantly moves at the present moment involves slight shifts and changes in direction, and the direction the object is moving in opens the possibility for it to move in the other direction, if it is moving left, it can keep going left, move right, up or down. How can we predicted it if it will move in any of these directions based on its current direction?
The reference frame becomes a wavelength that can disclose any of these directions. When the object moves in a specific direction, it is extrapolating one of the many possibilities and going into that path.
The object is marked off as a single definite direction
The conception is many possible directions
Direction means a course along something, which on its own just means what is traced as the objects movement
location is not just the placement of something in a particular position but it is also the place for a setting, or that a position is the possibility for a certain thing to happen more likely in that place. This means that given the placement of a definite object in a definite position, a particular potentiality from a set of possibilities is more likely actualized there. For example, when you jump into the subway tracks, the potentiality or getting mangled by the train is a reality there. We strip away the character of a location and simply ascribe it a state of inertia, and this is a conceptual definition, because when I occupy one position, any position I am not occupying can accompany any possibility. because even while the object is moving non stop, it is still occupying a position, which does not change.
This phenomenon is analogous to the way a chip is formed, there are routes of possibilities all simultaneously present that result into a canter conducting source.
The object is the centre source which has picked out a particular route of possibility and is acting on it, the conception are all these possible routes of action simultaneously present in time, which determined the object into a specific route.
But when the reference frame and the object are identical in form and bear no recognizable distinction, this is what is called the “amount by which a single measurement differs from a fixed value such as the mean”. The fixed value is the indivisible relation between conception and object, however the conception processes the object, as in the case the object emits lights for the object, and the object is processed by the conception, as in the case the eye receives the image of the object and inverts it for the brain to resolve.
Time is the mechanism of motion not merely for the object moving in space, nor for the conception having a duration of experience, but rather both simultaneously, the conception is going through time, moving along its duration, and within its duration, objects are moving in space disclosed by that duration. And so the conception gets sucked into its objects and moves along with them, it goes through a series of experiences, until it wakes up,
In Buddhism and Ancient Greek philosophy moderation, or the middle way, not only means the artifice taking in conduct, like being moderate, because sometimes that means being properly extreme, or acting on the proper extreme, as in the case of courage, it may require sometimes being rash to protect your self from someone, but more fundamentally, moderate is in conception, so the conception always maintains a middle way, this middle way is the concentration on maintaining the reference frame as a wavelength, a duration to capture the movements of objects through time. The conception is moving through time, it is disclosing a set of moving objects and going along with them, but deviate too far, the conception gets sucked into the objects and looses track of itself, it goes along with the duration of the object, and looses track that the object is being disclosed by the duration of a fixed value, which is itself, it always refinds that but often too late, it has already gone too far off into the path of some other duration, it is part of a different conception.
Being is the most abundant thing, every object is a being
Being
Pre-Socratic delineations about the idea of Being
Pre-Socratic Everything is separate and connected; separate in the sense that everything requires its own attention so that it does not become something other, and connected because everything influences everything else. The identity is the distinction of a thing from everything else, and the opposition is that it is connected and related to everything else.
Heraclitus is one of the first to propose that Being and Nothing have an interchangeable relation, which exhibits an indeterminacy between which is which when they are taken as separate, but together they form the distinguishable character of change. For example when you have a flash of light in a dark room, the light is flickering or flowing, there appears to be motion in the light, and this motion is simply the indeterminate mediation between being and nothing, then changing into each other. Parmenides offers the opposite view because he maintains being and nothing into fixed categories distinct from one another. When both categories are made distinct, Parmenides argues that change is impossible and therefore motion does not exists. For example, if there is only Being alone, it excludes Nothing since it exists, even Nothing would be a thing that is a Being; whereas if there is only Nothing, the idea of Being would never be and Being would never come into existence in the first place. In other terms, if we take a light in a dark room, and eliminate the dark room and only look at the light, there appears to only be light, no distinction of it in the darkroom and change therefore would not be discerned. Likewise if we only take darkness there would no light to move in the dark room.
If we examine this notion empirically we find that darkness for example is indivisible from light, even if we take light as the general substance which discloses the entirety of our scope, there would be points of darkness within it. Whether we take a point of light in darkness or point of darkness in light, we have a discrete reference point capable of determination within its general frame. These are the dimensions within a thing, which are the discrete abstractions capturing the moments of a motion. Dimension is defined in change of position which maintains track of its previous acts.
In the first dimension A line is the longest distance between two points. Second dimension is defined by the angle of two. Three dimensional is defined by the ability of moving in three different directions.
The pre-Socratic tradition established the universality of Being as the over arching principle of all particular things. Being discloses all specific and individual things, all things partake in Being. They recognized that each thing possess Being but they could not dispense this fact with how Being belongs in each thing to constitute all particular things alike. So they arbitrarily took any particular element in nature that is a Being –like “water” or “air”– to exhibit the overarching Being of all other things because it belongs in part in them. The conclusion was that because all things in nature possessed the element of liquidity, and the element of water locates this nature in its purest form, water therefore is the “archê”, the “beginning” or originating principle.
There is something true about the notion that through one object, there is the passage to an infinity of other objects, and modern science speaks of possible energies that contain an infinite amount of mass within a single minute space. But for the pre-Socratics they were trying to find a single being which begets all other beings because they reasoned why not start somewhere from a single source as the beginning of all things, after all, anything anywhere is more definite than no thing everywhere. But as we ascend down the order of the pre-Socratic philosophers we see the particular element they took to be the universal become less particular and became more universal. We see this for example in the shift from Thales “water” to Anaximander “apeiron”, this is a transformation from a specific element like water, which is shared by all life on earth, into the first notion of the “infinite”, which shares all things in the universe.
The originating principles progressively develop more generality and finally culminates in the Heraclitus principle of “logos”, which characterizes Being most accurately. In Heraclitus logos we see among the first contrast between Being and Nothing introduced as the doctrine of change being central to the universe in relation with the notion of Nothing defining fixation. Heraclitus says “Everything changes and nothing stands still” and he takes this division quit literally, that nothing is what it means to be stationary, while being is “flux” or “flows”. If we take these as qualities belonging to objects, then it does not become clear how an object is pure change without maintaining some variant of stillness, likewise it is impossible for an object to be fully stationary without exhibiting some degree of degeneration and change. There are no records to suggest that Heraclitus properly dispensed a synthesis between Being and Nothing, but for one thing is sure, his originating principle introduced the idea that the substance of nature and all physical objects is an abstract principle and not a physical one like his predecessors made a certain element. In other words if we reapply change and stillness not to physical objects but as properties of mind, then we see that a division is possible. Every physical object bears both some variant of change and stillness, but in the mind, the qualities of change and stillness are divided. There is a quality in mind that remains wholly indifferent to change, while another is constantly and only changing. Heraclitus did not make this connection but we can say nothing is consciousness observing the change, while thinking is the constant change of generating ideas.
After Heraclitus introduction of “logos” as the “Arche” of the world, all philosophers afterwards maintained that the fundamental operations of nature relate to a rational or abstract basis. Around the exact time as Heraclitus, the philosopher Anaxagoras proposed his idea of “nous” or mind. Anaxagoras described the world as a mixture of primary imperishable ingredients, where material variation was never caused by an absolute presence of a particular ingredient, but rather by its relative preponderance over the other ingredients; in his words, “each one is… most manifestly those things of which there are the most in it”.[3] He introduced the concept of Nous (Cosmic Mind) as an ordering force, which moved and separated out the original mixture, which was homogeneous, or nearly so.
located where logos or reason is a determining principle of nature. The atomist and the later parmdians, although are materialist in the sense that they find no ultimate purpose in the universe in the sense that randomness is the determining force, meaning there is no purposive governing body in the universe, they still described nature as operating in pure rational and abstract terms, the Pythagorean view numbers as the realist and actual fundamental objects in nature. The universe was purely geometric and even the atomist saw the “indivisible” bodies exhibiting purely logical external relations, action-reaction interactions.
The pre-Socratic tradition culminated in Plato’s idea of the Form, which described all particular objects in the world as originating in an absolute abstract source. The original source, or “beginning” of all objects in the world are “ideas”, essentially making Being the pure notion of Reason. Being is the pure form of rationality, and this ultimate Reason is the capacity to determine its ultimate Forms by projecting them onto its opposite nature, the particular, material objects, or what the universal is not, the inverse of universal nature, a specific objects that partakes in the Form of what it depicts, the particular chair partaking in the Form of chairs.
The idea of Being as infinite particularity peaked in Aristotle introducing substance to define Being as the universal because it is the most particular of things. Being is the most particular and specific of all things and this is its universal feature. Being is the most numerous substance, in other words, every particular thing is a Being, or that everything is a specific kind of Being. We see this when Aristotle speaks of “primary nature”, how a general principle explains the specific nature of a thing, spoken in this famous quote “everything which is healthy is related to health”. Being is that from which things proceed, not come out of, among the first ideas that Being is a process not just a result that we presuppose things to have without explaining how they continue being. Physical science sees the universe as a world of objects, while metaphysics views the universe as a world of beings.
Hegel “Philosophy of history” two views in Reason
“When we reflect on Nature, or the history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, the first picture presented to us is of an endless maze of relations and interactions, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes out of existence. This primitive, naïve, yet intrinsically correct conception of the world was that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and also is not, for everything is in flux, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.” F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, pp. 26-7
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti- duhring/introduction.htm
This infinitely changing feature we have to view as a particular quality of the universe and not merely a general state. This way of thinking changes the perspective of the world from being a bunch of scattered objects that are equally subjected to change, into the world as a unity of these distinctions whose arrangements in relation to each other change by transforming. When we apply the idea of Being to everything we are treating everything as a particular organisms undergoing metamorphosis. Aristotle took the idea of matter as the undifferentiated side of being that is pliable, it can be bent and moulded like clay, except this idea is not entering what is meant by matter as pliable nature of being because if we take clay for example our senses perceive it as a brown undifferentiated slab of matter, it has no qualities other than what is perceived, yet if we change the magnification we see that at the microscopic scale it is an aggregate of a multiplicity of unique geometric relations.
The point is that diversity is predicate or underplaying what we take to be a single undifferentiated quantity. This notion is logical because diversity is not measured by numeracy which is taken to characterize quantity, that is amount, for example two things different than each other are more diverse than one million of the same thing distinguished into single pieces, diversity is measured by different in quality and not quantity. The “pliable” nature of matter are the changes in these diverse forms and their arrangement they bear in relation to each other. Mind determines matter in that it is the substratum that changes the arrangements of what already constitutes a material condition.
The mind changes the arrangement of nature by way of compactification
Intro to Being and substance (Socrates, pre-socratics)
The concept “being”, Aristotle recognizes, is a very ambiguous term because it pertains equally to all objects and does not tell us the property of the object which gives it the kind of nature that makes it distinctive. This is why the pre-socratics each picked out an element as being responsible for the world. They all picked out a kind of being without stating what is being in and of itself. Aristotle substitutes the term being with the concept of “Substance”. The term substance for Aristotle picks out exactly the feature in the object that serves as its essential nature making it the kind of thing that it is. This is why Aristotle claims that the task of metaphysics is to study being in and of itself and not a specific part of being, as the pre-socratics did when in fact, they were aiming to find the substance in the world. Substance like Being belongs to all objects, but unlike being, it states that objects are different but are all held by an underlying nature which stays the same, yet at the same time, is responsible for the unique nature belonging to each particular object. Being on the other hand states that all things exists alike and share the exact same nature. Being therefore proposed the notion of matter, that there is an underlying material substrate. This was coined by Aristotle but even the pre Socrates before each pointed out a material element, yet non, are adequately able to explain why their peculiar object is responsible for the world.
The closes to capturing the notion of substance before Socrates was Anaxagoras and hercualties, in their notion of “nous”, logos or mind. Both correctly found the principle that was truly substance, yet they were also unable to explain how it is able to produce the infinity variety of material objects. Mainly because they only attributed mind with the mechanical regularity that nature exhibited. They said that the cycles of nature defined mind, which is true in that such nature exhibited a rational structure, yet they were unable to show how such a rational structure is able to generate forms, simply because such a structured seemed so mechanical and regressive that change seemed to be non present. Ironically, hercualties stated that the only fixed principle is flux, or change, yet what is this change and how the world changes, is only an unconscious process; any notion of consciousness was not elaborated by hecualties. The question of substance therefore seems to concern, how can substance produce change while remain the same thing? This question is answered by Aristotle, yet he only provided the initiation to what would be the ontology of human knowledge itself, that is, reason. Unmoved mover… is reason…
Heraclitus
Heraclitus so famously states “no man ever steps in the same river twice” to elaborate the quality of contradiction in nature, the “unity of opposites”, is also the quality of logos, “all entities come to be in accordance with logos”. Heraclitus makes the earliest recognition that there is “hidden harmony” in the elements and when something is conceived there is an implicit quality in the object that relates back to reason, that the mind conceives its own nature reflected in the object , a self return to itself, as Hegel puts it, mind is “at home with itself” in the object. Implicit in the idea of harmony is the quality to organize contradiction into harmony, and it is this power that the earliest men recognize as the thing to find in every object
The earliest account of this intuition must be analyzed by reading the following phrase in the most literal manner possible, “all entities move and nothing remains still”; the latter proposition “nothing remains still” is the fixed and unchanging quality which because of this feature is normally said to be the universal and therefore it is not anything in and of itself but discloses all distinct things. The nature of the pure observer , the capacity to conceive while being from its view inconceivable, is the unchanging principle and this is why it can disclose a set of changing objects. The former proposition “all entities move” pertains to the particular moment, when an object is distinctively conceived it is in flux because it has the potentiality of changing at any moment, and by having this potentiality it is actually in constant transition.
The constant flux in the world Heraclitus calls “strife” requires objects to be new from moment to moment so that one can never touch the same object twice, the object must dissolve and generate continually, but strife he took to be the way “all things come into being” and therefore it is not absolutely distinguishable from what he calls the element of its stability, “justice”. A process of change is never absolutely in flux because when it becomes inconceivable in this way this simply brought to light the presupposition for the nature of its stability. A contradiction is a harmony, for “justice” is a a rational resolution, the pulling (the arrow example
“We both step and do not step on the same river, we are and are not” is a completely logical proposition for a basic understanding of process because when
, Heraclitus goes on to explain “the way up and the way down” go on simultaneously and instantaneously to constitute a general picture of an element. He uses the example of fire, which is a primitive elucidation of light and energy, to demonstrate how in the external sense the flow of “fire” or energy appears to make it have one common appearance, but implied in its deeper mechanics are a series of opposing transformations, or changes, he calls it the “turning of the fire” that when fire is examined closely there is an inherent flux and instability in its motion and that is a point or an angle of change, where the element is changing into something other, but this point of change is not at any given location but is dispersed throughout and everywhere at every point making up the being of the element, at every atom there is a counter energy, an antimatter making up the whole of the element that appears one and the same. , that when looked at from a far appear as a continuous and harmonious flow. In this implicit change Heraclitus says exists the transformation as a replacement of one element by another, from fire smoke rises up and from smoke liquidity settles down.
There is a fine line wherein fire transitions into smoke and smoke into air
(Add to matter “hyle”)