XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Tang Huyen  wrote:   
   > On 11/17/2016 3:59 AM, noname wrote:   
   >   
   >> I hope you have made your chapters standalone instead of threading them all   
   >> together so it becomes necessary to rewrite everything for each little   
   >> insight.  I'm no historian but the layman's view gives the "history of all   
   >> philosophy everywhere" a rather large canvas to cover, so keep backups of   
   >> that hard-drive and make plans for a larger one.    
   >>   
   >> But who knows, often it seems that our real purposes are shielded from the   
   >> knowledge of our outer/societal selves, and you might simply be writing a   
   >> very long prelude to a very short book, should you stumble upon the   
   >> awakening all those philosophers have been seeking forever and find a way   
   >> to transmit it without the need for your physical presence.   
   >   
   > The main problem with publishing my manuscript (my thought)   
   > in chapters or installments is that it is revolutionary, and it must   
   > be delivered all at once, in one fell swoop, or it makes no sense   
   > at all, since its power of conviction derives from it being of one   
   > piece and would be counter-productive (counter-intuitive) if   
   > frittered away piece by piece.   
      
   Yes, I think I can fairly say that I understand that.  As an aside, do I   
   recall correctly that you once worked as a computer programmer?  The reason   
   I ask is that there is some industry-specific terminology that can perhaps   
   be used illustratively if it is mutually understood.   
      
   And imo it is not piecemeal delivery that is the threat to comprehension,   
   but the fact that the insights which show one that his collective structure   
   is incorrect, inherently-conflicting and thus requiring conceptual   
   readjustment, occur not all at once, but are delivered by the world   
   piecemeal.  In that way it seems meet that one's thought on it be likewise   
   delivered piecemeal.  Such is what I do here, recognizing that as I do   
   such, not only is my "thought" published as it continues to develop   
   herky-jerky, it is often helpfully corrected by the insights of others.   
      
   > That pretty much defines a   
   > system (something standing together, or something the parts of   
   > which stand together), in contrast to an assemblage of   
   > disparate pieces stitched together (or slapped together)   
   > artificially, haphazardly, without organic relations.   
      
   I was fortunate to have enrolled in a number of undergraduate classes   
   taught by people who had sufficient understanding of systems and their   
   analysis to pick up a grasp of the subject prior to entering upon a career   
   that continues in my retirement from its professional exercise.   
      
   >   
   > What brings all the pieces together into a single whole is a   
   > vision, an intuition (not a concept, or a bunch of concepts   
   > slapped together), and this vision or intuition is the form or   
   > structure which constitutes the underlying logic of the system   
   > (sorry for the circular definition), apart from the content which it   
   > applies itself to.   
      
   Yes, to communicate the whole, it must be understood as a whole, prior to   
   one's attempt to communicate it, and furthermore it is vital that the same   
   vision be kept completely and fully intact throughout the writing   
   experience.  Which basically means, you are unable yet to say what you do   
   not yet know in sufficient clarity and simplicity to hold fast to the   
   center of the concept even as you draw up words to express that which you   
   hold in your mind.   
      
   The obvious approach is either (a) regularly pitch out bait in hopes of   
   snagging a big one, (b) pick all the lint out of your navel, or (c) invent   
   a better approach to this particular problem in hopes that the process of   
   inventing it will show you what needs to be invented.   
      
   I offer you the suggestion that perhaps it could be possible for one to   
   communicate only the bits one knows how to communicate and hope some other   
   communicator pitches out some response that contains a magic word that   
   makes the thing "blink" itself clear in your mind, then you'll be able to   
   sit down and drudge out the words.   
      
   Of course it's drudging out the words that are the crux of the thing, and   
   of course it's a mortal pain in the ass working with textual media because   
   of the limp-wristed tools available for conceptual reorganization, floppy   
   unfirm things that distract more than they enter.  I have some experience   
   with this.   
      
   > This abstract nature of the form or structure   
   > makes it possible for it to govern any number of different   
   > contents, theoretically an infinite number of diverse contents.   
   > IOW the form or structure is content-free and because of that   
   > can apply to as many contents as it can find to apply itself to   
   > (again, sorry for the tautology). Therefore, once the overarching   
   > universal can be found to explain numerous diverse contents,   
   > the particulars that it can explain become fungible, even as the   
   > overarching universal (the form or structure) replicates itself   
   > unchanged and intact. Essentially, such dualism constitutes   
   > the scheme of an explaining factor and the multitude of its   
   > applications. Laws of physics are famous for this distinction, in   
   > that they are small in number but explain any number of physical   
   > phenomena, so long as the former can apply to the latter,   
   > otherwise the former are not laws for the latter.   
   >   
   > Therefore, if you take various philosophies as content (e. g.,   
   > those of the East and those of the West, those of antiquity and   
   > those of modernity), your job is to find the overarching universal   
   > which can explain those diverse contents, across the board, but   
   > this task is feasible only if such contents share the same form or   
   > structure, which at minimum requires them firstly to have a form   
   > or structure, secondly to share such form or structure, and those   
   > conditions are satisfied only if they are a priori, meaning that they   
   > are thought out ahead of time in an abstract mould, namely in the   
   > form or structure which is sought (again, sorry for the tautology).   
   > Mould is defined as a hollow form or matrix for giving a particular   
   > shape to something in a molten or plastic state (dictionary.com).   
   >   
   > This bringing together of various philosophies has never been   
   > accomplished, even as it has been reverently declared to be an   
   > urgent requirement for the understanding of philosophy, as form   
   > or structure has been formally given as what forms matter since   
   > Plato and Aristotle. Not just the run-of-the-mill lackeys in the   
   > philosophy departments, but luminaries like Kant, Hegel, Husserl   
   > and Heidegger have unanimously wished for it, or even claimed   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)