/lit/ - Literature

If the word ‘democracy’ is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence— in our time or in any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be ‘in act’ and ‘in potency’ at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretensions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility. It was to create this illusion that ‘universal suffrage’ was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction. We cannot recall who it was who first spoke of ‘manufacturing opinion’, but this expression is very apt, although it must be added that it is not always those who are in apparent control who really have the necessary means at their disposal. This last remark should make it clear why it is that the incompetence of most prominent politicians seems to have only a very relative importance; but since we are not undertaking here to unmask the working of what might be called the ‘machine of government’, we will do no more than point out that this incompetence itself serves the purpose of keeping up the illusion of which we have been speaking: indeed, it is a necessary condition if the politicians in question are to appear to issue from the majority, for it makes them in its likeness, inasmuch as the majority, on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion, is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on full knowledge.

Why the long face?

This now leads us to elucidate more precisely the error of the idea that the majority should make the law, because, even though this idea must remain theoretical— since it does not correspond to an effective reality— it is necessary to explain how it has taken root in the modern outlook, to which of its tendencies it corresponds, and which of them— at least in appearance— it satisfies. Its most obvious flaw is the one we have just mentioned: the opinion of the majority cannot be anything but an expression of incompetence, whether this be due to lack of intelligence or to ignorance pure and simple; certain observations of ‘mass psychology’ might be quoted here, in particular the widely known fact that the aggregate of mental reactions aroused among the component individuals of a crowd crystallizes into a sort of general psychosis whose level is not merely not that of the average, but actually that of the lowest elements present. It should also be noted, though in a slightly different connection, that some modern philosophers have even tried to introduce the democratic theory, according to which the opinion of the majority should prevail, into the intellectual realm itself, principally by claiming to find a ‘criterion of truth’ in what they call ‘universal consent’. Even supposing there were some question upon which all men were in agreement, this agreement would prove nothing in itself; moreover, even if such a unanimity really existed— which is all the more unlikely in that, whatever be the question, there are always many people who have no opinion at all and have never even thought about it— it would in any case be impossible to prove it in practice, so that what is invoked in support of an opinion and as a sign of its truth amounts merely to the consent of the majority— the majority of a group moreover that is necessarily very limited in space and time. In this domain the bankruptcy of the theory is even more obvious since it is easier to remove from it the influence of sentiment, which almost inevitably comes into play in the field of politics. It is this influence that is one of the chief obstacles in the way of understanding certain things, even for those who in themselves possess an intellectual capacity sufficient to understand them without difficulty; emotional impulses hinder reflection, and making use of this incompatibility is one of the dishonest tricks practiced in politics.

very dumb and simple minded. no wonder why he was forgotten.

>>14026840
because he could see the direction the world was heading in

bump

Guenon is great.

>>14026830
>the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser; this is an absolute mathematical certainty that nothing can gainsay.
absolutely microcephalic

>>14026856
if he is forgotten why is he so popular on /lit/

>>14027645
name one (1) example of the greater proceeding from the lesser

>>14026830
>The most decisive argument against democracy can be summed up in a few words: the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser; this is an absolute mathematical certainty that nothing can gainsay.

>>14027806
human beings from single celled organisms

probabilistic discursion when
1 + 1 = 3

the most decisive argument in favor of democracy can be summed up in one picture

>>14027833
>human beings from single celled organisms
no proof that happened, evolution is a religious belief

>>14027850
he actually did a much better job as King than many of his better looking contemporaries and ancestors

>>14026830
Although I'm a stirnerfag I've taken the time to read a bit of Guenon. Reading his first book and just skimming some of his more core books I honestly see a lot of similarities between their opinions on the West. Although Stirner completely bags the idea of the nation I can't help but see it running false when up against Eastern countries. In my opinion, only the West has these pretenses of the "human being" making state and nation completely ridiculous, but in the East, this pretense of the 'human being' doesn't seem to exist. I'm not well-read on Eastern shit anyone care to help me out here?

By 'human being' I mean the optimal humanitarian being that we all presuppose to protect in the West but when we do self-seeking impulses these are known solely as part of our private life, our public life is a purely human one.

>>14027995
According to Hindus, we are spiritual beings having a human experience.

>>14028016
Can this spiritual being do as it wills? Or does it have some sort of boundary/limitation?

>>14027806
Since Guénon mentioned mathematics: any big number is generated by the addition of smaller numbers.

>>14027749
That is the definition of forgotten.

>>14026830
there needn't be an argument against democracy because it doesn't exist. it's smoke and mirrors. the 'people' don't rule anything. They get a choice between two or more puppet governments. It appeals to people's tribalist instinct and ensures the majority of people are happy/ feel they have a voice.

>>14028023
We have the greatest degree of freedom, but we are trapped in human bodies. Given that humans are made in God's image, we are the only race with the greatest ethical mobility with capability to contemplate the nature of God.

>>14028023
"Like the ocean, I am boundless. I am no more bound to the body than the sky is to a cloud, so how can I be affected by its states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep? Imagined attributes added to one's true nature come and go. They create karma and experience its effects. They grow old and die, but I always remain immovable like mount Kudrali. There is no outward turning nor turning back for me, who am always the same and indivisible. How can that perform actions which is single, of one nature, without parts and complete, like space? How can there be good and bad deeds for me who am organless, mindless, changeless and formless, and experience only indivisible joy? The scriptures themselves declare "He is not affected" - Vivekachudamani

From the perspective of the Hindu school Advaita, limitation is only apparent, this apparent sense of limitation only seeming to exist due to the power of maya belonging to the very same spiritual being. Once liberation is attained, the ever-same true state of the being as boundlessness and freedom is realized as having existed all along. The true nature of the spiritual being is absolute freedom, which includes freedom from will and desires, as long as we will we are not truly free. The apparent freedom of will that we experience now is really bondage, and stems from the illusion of agency and embodied existence that we impose on ourselves.

>>14026830
>>14026831
>>14026843
have sex

>>14028093
>>14028084
Thanks, guys gonna do some thinking and more research on my part and report back. A lot of Guenon threads are up so hopefully, this one doesn't get meme'd to shit like they always do.

I'm considering now when this liberation is achieved how it compares to the previous, so to speak, rooted state.
>The true nature of the spiritual being is absolute freedom, which includes freedom from will and desires, as long as we will we are not truly free.
Also, trying to understand what it means to be free from will and desire. When spun on an Eastern point of view you could say that the 'Will' and 'Desire' are essentially false desires, spooks you can say. This also reminds of me of Schopenhauer's idea that desire is never satisfied, and if we don't desire anything we suffer in boredom. A pendulum swinging from boredom and suffering for surely desiring something, (wanting to achieve something) inevitably leads to some kind of suffering through struggle.

>>>/an/

>>14026830
That's why I hate PBL.

>>14026830
>summed up in a few words: the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser; this is an absolute mathematical certainty that nothing can gainsay
retroactively BTFO in three;
One. Tuuuuuuuuuuu.. therheeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

>>14028289
but zero is still the greatest number because it encompasses everything and everything derives from it.
“That which is below is as that which is above, and that which is above is as that which is below, to perform the miracles of the one thing.”

>>14026830
>the greater cannot proceed from the lesser
Completely backwards. The greater can only proceed from the lesser.

>>14028199
It seems like you've finally met your match butterfly, usually you post some snarky reply that bears the resemblance of an argument, but there's nothing you can say in response to him here

>>14028402
give one (1) example

>>14027850
>decadent aristocracy is the only alternative
Furthermore, some bought & owned bureaucrat in the modern 'democratic' state has more power than any lord in a feudal realm, and his power is largely arbitrary unlike a lord who is bound above and below by many people's interests. And being as the bureaucrat is bought & owned, all of the power comes to a handful of small circles worldwide. The feudal realm barely has a state by today's definition. It's primarily based on a network of traditions. Extremely decentralised, vassals and subjects need to be pleased which generally ensures an arrangement in which your needs are met. Instead of being a nonfactor nonentity like 99.9% of the population today.

>>14028447
He’s just another lost spiritualist and he’s being force fed into here as more distractions. The longer you wait and waste time on this junk the more foolish you’ll feel when you come to atheism

>>14028560
>The longer you wait and waste time on this junk the more foolish you’ll feel when you come to atheism
haha! jokes on you, I used to be agnostic/atheist almost all my life until reading him showed me how foolish that was and made me (along with thinkers he recommends/cites) realize that the Divine is real

>>14028582
>Divine
You need to read more

>>14028194
>When spun on an Eastern point of view you could say that the 'Will' and 'Desire' are essentially false desires, spooks you can say.
Yes, exactly. "All this wells up like waves in the sea. Recognising, 'I am That,” why run around like someone in need" - Ashtavakra Gita 3.3

>and if we don't desire anything we suffer in boredom
the reason Schopenhauer thought that is because he never reached complete freedom from desire, but still retained a desire for amusement

>>14028597
what's wrong with writing "Divine"?

>>14026830
Where is math involved in Guenon's ideology?

>>14028622
you can find your answer in the book he wrote on calculus (freely available on archive.org)

>The guenons (/ɡəˈnoʊn/ or /ˈɡwɛnən/) are the genus Cercopithecus of Old World monkeys
democracy is stupid but I'm not about to take advice from a monkey

>>14028701
Guénon = / = guenon

learn 2 reading comprehension dweeb

>>14028194
here's a chart if you need help getting started

>>14028721
it was a joke

innsmouth looking motherfucker

>>14028654
Can I read it without reading much of his other stuff?

>>14028856
I dunno, I haven't read it. He outlines what he means by 'metaphysics', 'tradition' etc in the first half of his first book 'intro to Hindu doctrines' so you can use that as a resource to have recourse to if you are confused when reading the calculus book

>>14028582
You weren’t an atheist. You were just shopping around for another faith to lean on.

>>14028879
>le no true atheist fallacy
if believing in religion and God is wrong than why is mommy Tulsi a Hindu?

>>14026830
>>14026831
>>14026843
b&rp

>>14026830
Guenon would support a theocracy or an absolute monarchy?

>>14027833
>>14028036
>read critic of quantitative reasoning
>can only answer quantitatively
kek

>>14028560
Atheism is litteraly a phase some ,not very smart, kids pass through. Since our society is based on infantilization and narrativization, some keep being atheists well in their adult years.

>democracy
>metaphysics

Hahaha stop larping

>>14028533
2+2=4

>>14029432
he would support the idea of giving up on a constitution

>>14026830
this is from reign of quantity?

>>14028533
Humans

>Shit filled parasite as a baby
>Potential to be a great person

>>14030125
Crisis of the Modern World

>>14028743
Pretty much gonna read that book on aliens and nothing else. Hopefully it's another "aliums are actually demons" like Keel or Vallee, because I love that shit.

>>14030691
Guenon never wrote anything about this

Geunon Bump

>>14027921
t. brainlet

>>14027921
No

>>14027833
>he doesn’t know about downward causality
>he doesn’t know about T symmetry
Oh am I laffing

>>14026830
>>14026840
Fixed.

lmao this is a funny meme for once
the guenon bs for the last 10 month or so, such larping such bs
his long horse face is half of the reason, the other one muh decline, thots will fuck me when islam monk etc
dont reply btw

>>14032880
I love Guénon but this is funny. I hope he will forgive me.

>>14026830

>i don't like stupid peasants

yawn

>>14028551
yeah, under manoralism 99.9% of the population weren't complete nonfactor nonentities in the realm of political power. the past was a utopia of personal empowerment that wasn't rife with corruption, and decadent aristocracy at all.

the fact that you put 'democracy' in quotes shows that the example of the modern state is an utter strawman for anyone trying to argue for the concept of popular sovereignty. the idea that the dominant problem of contemporary neoliberal world order is embodied an overbloated state apparatus is such a red herring, because it simultaneously pigeonholes any democratic activist into advocating for an increase in state power, whilst also being completely wrong. the state functions essentially as the military and monetary arm of capital, as you yourself pointed out. as the history of monopolistic capital shows, you would not solve the issue of heavy centralization by freeing capital from the fetters of a democratic oversight that is essentially non-existent. but by identifying this problem with democracy rather than capital, neo-reactionaries put their opposition in a double bind. you either assent to an utterly false notion and strengthen the neo-reactionary case for dismantling democratic institutions, or you reject it allowing the neo-reactionary to put you in a tidy statist box manufactured for easy dismissal.

>The most decisive argument against democracy can be summed up in a few words: the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser

No. 3 major flaws off the bat:
1.) Systems theory, mereology, set theory are massive schools of thought built on top of the idea of the "greater proceeding from the lower". The very concept of emergence is the antithesis of the proposal here, and has been studied time and again under bullet-proof systems of formal grammar. This proposal is nothing more than flowery prose that relies on its own baseless assertions as the foundation for a proof.

2.) The universe is intransitive. A misfolded protein turns any animal into a drooling, pathetic wretch that can do nothing but violently shake in its newfound retardation. The idea of bureaucratic ordering of things doesn't reflect reality.

3.) Language itself is the "higher" proceeding from the "lower". This entire post is written in the capacity of combining parts of speech to form clauses. Clauses are then modified to form sentences. Sentences are combined to convey ideas. The end result is a system of extremely high information entropy, where just a few thousand characters cause hundreds of millions of neurons to process the communication and translate the visual sensational qualia to mental abstract qualia.


Thanks for posting this absolutely garbage OP. I can't wait for retards to copy and paste it as bait for the next month.

>>14026830
>the higher cannot proceed from the lower
does guenon disagree with yogis and buddhas
isn't it possible both ways
or is he merely saying that higher cannot proceed from the lower without special intervention
like water cannot rise upwards without the help of something that counters the effects of gravity on it

>>14029432
yes

>>14033868
he is really arguing in favor of them here is what you don't see

>>14034008
>The very concept of emergence is the antithesis of the proposal here, and has been studied time and again under bullet-proof systems of formal grammar
What the brainlets responsible for these alleged 'bullet-proof' systems didn't understand is that emergence was already refuted by Indian thinkers in the first millennium. Emergence presupposes an infinite regress which only ends (or can be initiated) with that X emerging from something else or from nothing, both of which upon further analysis are inherently self-contradictory and illogical. X cannot ever 'emerge from nothing', nothingness begets nothingness, add 0 an infinite number of times and you get 0. X cannot really 'emerge from something else' either as this creates an infinite regress that only can be begun or initiated by that X emerging from some base X existing eternally, but to claim that some eternal X existing forever as the uncaused eternal X suddenly gives rise to a series of emergences is really to say that the eternal becomes non-eternal, which is a contradiction in terms as the eternal can never become not-eternal because then it wasn't truly eternal to begin with.

>>14028560
>The longer you wait and waste time on this junk the more foolish you’ll feel when you come to atheism
I feel foolish only for coming to atheism. Applying rational thought to religion is autistic. I went through the phase, as I think most teenagers do, but I suspect that you and your ilk are no longer children. As such, those who are openly critical of the concept of religion should be greatful when I generously call them a "midwit" instead of "retard." Please go back to whatever Rick and Morty fanfiction site you slithered out of.

I called this argument The Ontological-Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Which isn't a problem for a relativistic, but if you have any concept of value on any level, that something is better than something else, then you have to accept that life, mind, will, is superior to inanimate matter: and therefore the former cannot proceed from matter or matter and reality itself is alive. If it isn't alive then Life and Mind do not exist, or they exist eternally somewhere else. If all of this is wrong then that means mind and life come from nothing, which goes against the laws.

>>14035215
This was a TL;DR. Another solution is that mind (including self, we, meaning) and life do not exist–which means nothing exist except existence, whatever it is. Without mind there are no objects, no categories, no Beingness. Guess Parmenides was right.

>>14035230
Parmenides was right and Shankara too

>>14035230
>nothing exist except existence
But that is literally the case lmao.

>>14035302
You'll have to deny your own existence.
Also: the statement is one of absolute monism, yet at the same time it affirms Heraclitean monism, since without ontology there's nothing that says existence is one or isn't and isn't infinitely infinite (absolute Flux). It has to be both.
But this is exactly what Plato said in Sophist 249d, existence is one and infinite, always becoming yet always only being. And now we've gone full circle.

>>14035326
>You'll have to deny your own existence.
Not if your existence is one with, non-different from or included within the existence that is the only thing that exists

>>14035343
Yes, but to say that all is one is an affirmation. It can easily just be everything disconnected, and all patterns of coherence and unity are mere illusions, that all is i chaos. Each infinitesimal pixel/grain is insular, each its own existence apart from everything else. Infinitely-infinite. But this is paradoxical, since it implies that all things we call things (the trees, that stone, this snail–every thinkable object) are each real, but that each being all that is denies the reality of every other thing. This does not allow One-and-Many, only Many-Many, the platonists argued that Many-Many (infinite-infinity) is an impossibility. But only Mind can make Heraclitean Flux impossible, and Mind/Being affirms Plato's One-and-Many.

>>14035377
>this does not allow One-and-Many, only Many-Many,
if you take the hypothetical option of viewing the all as disconnnected and without real coherence/unity which is not by any means the only way of conceiving it. You can affirm that all is One without necessarily regarding that One as disconnected and without coherence.

>>14026830
>the greater cannot proceed from the lesser; this is an absolute mathematical certainty
uhm, except reverse percentage equations exist

>>14026830
>The most decisive argument against democracy can be summed up in a few words: the higher cannot proceed from the lower,
This implies the leader is ontologically different than those who elected him. This may be the thought process of monarchy, but doesn't make sense towards a democratic mindset. It's a brainlet value judgement assumed to be the cosmological default without any sound basis.

>>14035391
Many-Many implies that the parts have no relevance to the whole–and the whole no relevance to the nonexistent parts.
It's fundamentally a paradox.
It's the exact opposite of the denial of each object, it affirms all of them, incoherently, because coherence implies unity and any form of unity implies the One. But the One does not necessitate absolute Monism (the Solipsistic One), just as Immanence doesn't imply absolute Flux
Plato Sophist 249b-d.

>>14035399
That proves Platonism.
'Where' is the math that function in of itself but has no parallel in reality? The majority of all math just is with zero connections to reality.

>>14035434
>implying mathematics isn't real

>>14034717
Based

>>14027749
because muh traditionalism. Rightists here are obsessed with Evola without actually reading his retarded ideas, and since Evola was inspired by Guenon they endlessly talk about him without bothering to understand his retarded ideas either

>>14035476
That's the point you cunt. It's real but clearly not of reality. Therefore reality as a whole-entire is more than physics.

>>14034008
>3) Language...
Absolutely retarded. Before introducing the formal hierarchy of the system of language, communication and ideas are already acting. The formality is a mete pedagogical device.

>>14034008
>systems theory, meteorology, muh emergence muh
Shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck up. You really are a dumb fucking nigger browsing Wikipedia reading science abstracts and thinking you’re hot shit. All of these so called emergent systems themselves exist within the framework of the laws that allow them to exist. Without the principles of thermodynamics that exist across the entirety of the universe none of these physically observed and described phenomena would ever happen. The universally consistent behaviour of bodies with similar properties implies a universal framework affecting all of these bodies. The fact that I cannot find a single instance of a hot object absorbing heat from a cold object would suggest that the thermodynamics of heat transfer aren’t governed by small particles, but that the small particles obey a larger categorical. You fucking dumb fucking nigger.

>>14035844
>not a single equilibrium
Anon....it’s a dynamic equilibrium. Brush up on your statistical mechanics

>>14035637
>it's real
>it's not of reality
Pick one.
>mathematics are just a product of human thought
>surely it's not the symbolic representations of underlying principles which are themselves real

Pro-tip: something is not real or unreal based on whether it has a physical manifestation

>>14027833
Forgotten about the massive amount of input of energy from the Sun, have we?

>>14036001
I am a chemical engineer, statistical mechanics is a model used to describe a process, the fact is that by and large the process always goes in the same direction everywhere in the universe. The behaviour of all atoms is consistent, all protons exhibit the same properties, etc this implies that the behaviour of parts is in fact governed by the system of the whole and not vice versa. Don’t ever fucking (you) me again

>>14035844
The anthropic principle is false, fyi.

>>14036143
>Therefore reality as a whole-entire is more than physics.
can you read?

>>14036498
based chemical engineer

>>14036638
No, thats why you should say things without fonfusing people with your verbage

>>14035426
>But the One does not necessitate absolute Monism
I never implied that it did, I was speaking more from the perspective of Vedanta which like Platonism affirms the One and the Many. The One is undifferentiated and without modification but the principle of maya that the Upanishads describe provides an explanation for how the world of multiplicity and forms can present itself to us while remaining rooted in and sustained by the unconditioned and unmodified completely homogenous One.

>>14026830
>This reversal of the true hierarchical order begins when the temporal power seeks to make itself independent of the spiritual authority, and then even to subordinate the latter by claiming to make it serve political ends. This is an initial usurpation that opens up the way to all the others; thus it could be shown, for example, that the French monarchy was itself working unconsciously, from the fourteenth century onward, to prepare the Revolution that was to overthrow it;

The development of the merchant class, the bourgeoisie, through the development of capitalism during the 18th century led to the french revolution. Nobility was the class in power. Nobility power mostly came from land possession. Bourgeoisie gained power in the 18th, because bourgeoisie owned means of production which had a better and better output with time, making bourgeoisie a stronger class than nobility. The french revolution only formalize this switch of power from the dominant class which was the nobility, drawing it's power from land possession, to bourgeoisie, drawing it's power from factories, which increased of lot in size and output during the 18th century. If, like Guenon said, the temporal power didn't detach itself from the spiritual power, it would have changed nothing. Bourgeoisie would still have grown more and more powerful, and would have overthrown the nobility anyway.

>>14037732
That's a baseless deterministic assertion which ignores that at other times and place throughout history throughout Asia for example there have been powerful merchant and bureaucracy classes which have not done so

>>14036646
It means that the physical world, often referenced as 'reality', isn't all reality—or even the most fundamental.

>>14030659
not him but ty

>>14026830
>the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser; this is an absolute mathematical certainty that nothing can gainsay
JUST

>>14026830
>higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser
Pure sophistry. The action of any mechanism always proceeds from the transfer of force from one of its constituent parts. The whole action of an automobile depends on the action of its engine cylinders. The function of the body depends on the heart. The phenomenon is referred to as emergence in complexity theory.

Of course people will be latching onto quoting a poorly worded analogy.

>>14039377
i woudln't say poorly worded but very specific an analogy for sure; like look at the retards applying it to automobiles lol

>>14039350
Heat always transfers into cold
Diffusion is always of greater concentration to lower concentration.
The transfer of force, understood in Aristotelian terms, means a higher (greater) cause is responsible for lower causes.
Your examples dont contradict this.

>>14035111
>with that X emerging from something else...inherently self-contradictory and illogical.
>X cannot really 'emerge from something else' either as this creates an infinite regress that only can be begun or initiated by that X emerging from some base X existing eternally
This is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to even begin.

Talking about platonic concepts as positive things that exhibit properties of existence is an abuse of language. It's no wonder you're so against formal grammars, because you can't try to smuggle violations of basic dialectical rules when there are rigid standards. Existential seperation in totality makes tense and other contextual modifiers completely meaningless. Abstracts are not tied to time and space like material things. Only in the absolute purest idealistic arguments can you begin to say otherwise, and the inevitability of these arguments are always full of the exact same unsubstantiated ontological exceptions that end up being entirely the same in a technical sense, only bearing difference in a useless figurative sense.

X exists as a label under conventionalist thought. This is substantiated in that an entity of X that arises out of the interaction of Y and Z can be atomized into that interaction as long as knowledge of this observation has been preserved. However the conventionalist label allows for higher higher information entropy in communication. In a practical example, the element of helium which is composed of two hadrons, one positive, one neutral. The nucleus of this atom is bound by nuclear force. This phenomenon is fundamentally incapable of being explained from a perspective that only considers hadrons (in our practical example, these are X.) However, when the perspective is atomized to the level of elementary particles, the nuclear force is now perfectly explained as the interactions of quarks and gluons and antiquarks shift color charges around.

The pattern of hadrons existing is materially real. The pattern of helium existing is materially real. Both of these are results of the same force and properties of their most elementary components, producing different patterns at different scales. The second pattern's existence is reliant on using the same cause of the first pattern on two discrete instances of the first pattern, it's a function of a procedural system that has observable rules. "Emergence doesn't exist" is absolutely galaxybrain bullshit that you've derived from throwing out the observed rules for the patterns they create. The only possible environment in which this perspective of yours even remotely approaches "sense" is one without change, where all things are static, where there are no actions driving a time arrow forward. The argument you're trying to make is the most brainlet attempt at idealistic thinking I have ever seen in my entire life.

>>14039631
> without change, where all things are static, where there are no actions driving a time arrow forward.

not that anon, but what is Real is the only thing that ''exists'', and it is real because it doesn't change, nor move (as you said). It is eternal.
Nothing exists, only That that is Real.

>>14032880
What a handsome boyo

>>14028037
severely underrated

>>14032880
much better

>>14039436
>The transfer of force, understood in Aristotelian terms

But Aristotle didn't understand physics.

>>14039969
This is a misinterpretation of what change necessarily means, and, potentially a fundamental aspect of time.

Our language is heavily woven with the concept of time (or more accurately, time arrows) and change describes the potential transformation between measurable segments of time. This is why we have tenses and prepositions. That being said, from a perspective independent of time-arrows, time can be thought of as a literal 4th axis of space. Under these conditions, the set of everything includes everything at every intersect of 3D space according to how it intersects with time.

The biggest problem with this is that such a perspective is incapable of performing observations, because observations rely on time-arrows. The natural conclusion is that such a state would be an isolated system, with no ability to support anything approaching meaning. It's one of the really weird emergent properties of reality.

One could, perhaps, make observations in a separate system with a time arrow, given they had some way to cross the ontological barrier. But this then turns both systems into open systems, and the two can be considered the same isolated system. This all requires the direction of the time-arrow be the exact same in both systems, otherwise extremely strange artifacts would occur (like observing events in a seemingly random order, in the best case)

Because "change" is a word specifically used to describe the progression of an arrow of time, and because such systems are the only ones capable of holding meaning in the first place, any dialectical discussion can only make sense in a context when change is capable of occurring.

The closest one can get to a meaningful changeless picture is through a 3D slice of reality at any arbitrary point in time. It should be noted however, that such a slice will be missing a large amount of elementary information, and can only be observed and considered in a system where change is a component of existence.

Were I given the power of Creatio ex Nihilo of elementary particles, in order to create an observable universe from scratch I would need 3 pictures:
1.) To tell me the location of everything
2.) To tell me the directional vector of everything
3.) To tell me the energy of everything
Though if I'm being completely honest, whether or not this can be truncated down to 2 pictures is a metaphysical quandry yet to be solved.

Whether or not you wish to assert that the plane where such rules must be followed as real, isn't of much consequence. It's this same plane that serves as the shared reality that we all remark upon to one another.

None of my posts are necessarily to critique idealism, not at all. If anything, it's to critique outdated semantics and inject a dose of contemporary metaphysics into a board obsessed with platonic idealism.

>>14026856
>very dumb and simple minded.
Anon says while making a two sentence post.

>>14039631
fancy equivocation aside, in your example where did the sub-atomic particles making up that helium originate from? It leads to the same issue, when you go back far enough those particles can only emerge from nothing (impossible) or from something already existing eternally which becomes a contradiction in terms

>>14026856
>very dumb and simple minded.

very comprehensive rebuttal anon, this is the sort of quality dialogue i come to /lit/ for

>>14038460
Good, I couldn't bear to live if this mere physical plane was all there is.

>>14027833
>human beings from single celled organisms
evidence?

>>14040769
Or they simply exist eternally.

>>14042444
Do you really believe that though? And then if we accept that hypothetically we are led to the problem that if there is a set amount of X existing eternally there is never really any origination or emergence of new X but just a reshuffling and moving around of parts within the eternal whole, and hence the original claim of no emergence/origination remains intact.

>>14035541
>Evola without actually reading his retarded ideas
Which specific ideas are you talking about?

>>14028560
What if it's not "all BS anyway" you stupid fucking nigger? Huh? What if it's not? What do you have to say you pathetic fucking retard? Huh? What do you have to say? You don't even know what gender you are, why the fuck should anyone listen to you about anything if you can't even figure out the most basic challenges of life? Huh? What are you gonna say? "A BLOO BLOO EVERY SHOULD PUSH THEIR DICK INSIDE OUT JUST LIKE ME AN WE'LL ALL BE EQUAL A BLOO BLOO!" Huh? Why the fuck should anyone take you seriously? You're brain is plastified and it shows in the fact that you're constantly getting btfo in every thread. Huh? What are you possibly going to enumerate here that's worth listening to? Huh?

>>14029849
>implying that two doesn't come from half of 4, and 1 from the basic fraction of the infinite

>>14040241
time is different from succession

>Whether or not you wish to assert that the plane where such rules must be followed as real, isn't of much consequence. It's this same plane that serves as the shared reality that we all remark upon to one another.

there is no plane fundamentally; this plane (of empirical reality) is illusory, false precisely for not being That that is real (the Real)

>>14039631
The assumption of mono directional causality is predicated on there being some infinitely thin periodicity that we can observe in which the parts act to create the whole but since events occur simultaneously at all time scales it is impossible to ever conclude that it is the interaction of smaller particles governing the behaviour of the wholes vs the wholes governing the behaviour of the smaller particles. It is entirely a human bias, since the behaviour of all particles are consistent it is impossible to say with certainty that those particles are interacting and not responding to the interactions of the whole. In other words we assume a “push” model of the universe where the flow of motion or time was set upon by the Big Bang and every reaction is a causal chain of one small thing hitting another small thing. But the universe could in fact be teleological, the interactions we observe could be “pulled” at by the conclusion. In other words would we even be cognisant if from a causal point of view time was moving backwards? Would we not process the rules of reality from our observations even if the causality of the universe was the opposite of our observation? Is causality a subjective process or an objective one? How can it be empirically deduced when we are confined within time, and finally how do you determine whether large things induce small things and not vice versa when they happen simultaneously? If an apple begins to decompose you can observe the cells and show me their oxidation and digestion by bacteria but it is an illusion to presume that the cell started rotting and the collective of cells that is the object (orange) now appears to be rotting versus the object (orange) began to rot and thus its cells are now oxidising.

>>14042877
Unless real is given as a label for this empirical plane. Whether or not it is fundamental is irrelevant, as our logical frameworks are incapable of working with fundamentals without resorting to hidden variables. Existential semantics are good for pondering why particles spin from an empirical perspective, but not necessarily for constructive dialogue.

>>14042931
>The assumption of mono directional causality is predicated on there being some infinitely thin periodicity
This premise is wrong from the start. Spacetime is not deterministically capable of infinitely thin anything, other than gravitational singularities (and even this is more complicated than that.)

>it is impossible to ever conclude that it is the interaction of smaller particles governing the behaviour of the wholes vs the wholes governing the behaviour of the smaller particles.
However whether our perception of causality is reversed or not is irrelevant. So long as the set of all things is parallel between two systems of entropy, they are the same set. Objective origin is a meaningless qualifier, as either terminal of interaction being identified as the origin does not practically change anything. It's a dialectical standard that our discussions follow our perception of time where causality is concerned for the utilitarian purpose of simplicity's sake.

In fact, whether or not wholes outside of the set of all things, or conventionalist definitions, is highly debateable. Whether or not a whole is identified relies on conventionalist definition of that whole. An observer who is wholly ignorant of computers will not be able to identify the network whole of two computers wirelessly connected.
The stipulation for this is two-fold:
1. The conventionalist concept of "computer network" is passed on to the mind
2. The mind holds the ability to naturally observe atomized phenomenon, and identifies the mutual transmission of radiation between the computers.

This second stipulation is an important one. Through sufficient knowledge of elementary components, the concept of whole can be reached.

This is how we train AI to understand wholes, like dogs, houses, faces, etc. With given data atomized as much as possible, patterns within the data can become defined as wholes, and wholes can then be identified. However deviations that haven't been trained for in this pattern creates misidentification. The conventionalist definition doesn't cover the deviations, and the lack of complete atomization means that the whole does not truthfully exist. In ideal conditions, the whole can always be considered and arrived to. With wholes relying on perspective, and elementary components relying on observation, the objective advantage of parts lies in the fact that the higher can always be defined from the lower, but not necessarily vice versa according to the perception of time arrows. The same perception required to give meaning to wholes in absence of elementary knowledge.

bump

>>14038160
Didn't know the merchant class didn't take power in China today.

>>14026830
"Lets us suppose for a moment that there is such a thing as this alleged right. I maintain that all that results from it is an inexplicable mishmash. For once force produces right, the effect changes places with the cause. Every force that is superior to the first succeeds to its right. As soon as one can disobey with impunity, one can do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always right, the only thing to do is to make oneself the strongest. But what kind of right is it that perishes when the force on which it is based ceases? If one must obey because of force, one need not do so out of duty; and if one is no longer forced to obey, one is no longer obliged. Clearly then, this word "right" adds nothing to force. it is utterly meaningless here." Jean-Jacques Rousseau from the Social Contract, Bk1, Ch3.

You have a gross misunderstanding of right as freedom and power. Your ontology is dis-causal and disqualified by its assumption about ordering a "greater" among a "lower."

oooooo thats gotta hurt!...

>>14045243
>commie functionaries
>merchant class

>>14026830
nice thread

>>14045688
Go watch american factory.

>>14047498
no thanks, I'm not a soiboi who watches television like you are

>>14042466
Both inflation theory, string theory, and Penrose' CCC propose eternality.
As a Platonism I believe the "world of becoming" (in which we live) is conditionally eternalized by the Soul of the world. But cause and effect doesn't actually exist here (objects are phenomenal) so the whole debate about infinite regress is pointless.

>>14032928
>his long horse face is half of the reason

>>14026830
>>14047971
Hang yourself, inbred cunt

>>14026830
>the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser

what does this mean lads

>>14048476
it is an incommunicable mystery anon, once you are initiated into a tradition you will grasp the meaning

>>14048706
Sounds like a memetic being has made a nest in your psychology.

>>14048706
Capitalism is a good tradition, isn't it?