GE Morton wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
value wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 5:52 amWhat
precedes Being on a fundamental level lays
beyond it from within the subjective perspective of Being. This is simple logic.
Well, no, there is no "logic" to that claim. Indeed, it involves a misunderstanding of the verb, "to be." "Being" is not itself an existent --- the word is a verb, not a noun, the gerund form of "to be," which applies to anything which exists.
Being is a term that is used to describe the quality of existing from within a
subjective perspective. The concept Being seeks meaningful relevance 'within' existence.
GE Morton wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 11:01 amThere is no "fundamental level of being." So your claim that "something precedes it, or "lays beyond it," makes no sense. There is nothing there for anything to precede or be "beyond," or to have a "subjective perspective." Stars exist, cows exist, trees exist, people exist, rocks exist, etc. "Being" does not. That notion is a mystical malapropism, a bit of nonsense conjured by confused philosophers. It is a vacuous term (as you're using it).
For my argument, the term Being could be replaced with 'subjective perspective'.
Simple logic makes it evident at first glance that a subjective perspective requires an a priori potential for a
begin. Therefore, a subjective perspective requires a fundamental explanation (a concept that
precedes it).
What
precedes a subjective perspective fundamentally is the only possible ground for significance within that subjective perspective. Therefore the origin of a subjective perspective lays
beyond it from within that perspective.
A subjective perspective has only its beginning-less origin as possible ground for significance.
The question what lays 'beyond space' would fundamentally be equal to asking what 'precedes space'.
Being is not a vacuous term. The term Being seeks meaningful relevance 'within' (experience) and that within is the origin of existence and true ∞ Infinite (beginning-less) of nature which means that it seeks a
meaning that is different than empirical knowledge.
GE Morton wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 11:01 amIt involves a meaning 'beyond' space and time (i.e. that 'precedes' it from a fundamental philosophical perspective).
Well, that is circular. Whatever may be "beyond space and time," is is not
meaning. That term refers to the denotative referent or a word or symbol. And postulating such a thing is hardly a product of a "fundamental philosophical perspective." It is a product of some mystic's undisciplined imagination.
A word or symbol doesn't stand on it's own as separate from an observer. Meaning involves subjective experience and that subjective experience requires an a priori explanation. The concept meaning involves more than a descriptor.
When I consider the term meaning as such, it involves an underbelly feeling like love. What is the origin of love when the concept true randomness is fundamentally impossible?
GE Morton wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
When meaning is a priori applicable to any value in the cosmos, one could say that meaning is in the air. Every particle in the cosmos exists by a potential for fulfilment of meaning which is empirically described as probability.
There are no "values" in "the cosmos," except to the extent there are people in the cosmos who value things. "Value" is a measure of the importance of some thing to some person, some valuer. It exists nowhere except in human minds. And, again, you're misusing the term "meaning." "Meaning" is not something which can be "fulfilled." "Potential for a fulfillment of meaning" is gibberish. And probabilities are mathematical ratios of the frequency of an event to the total number of trials. It has nothing to do with "meanings," or values, or any metaphysical fantasies.
Applicability of Value in the cosmos is evident by the simple notion that the slightest departure from the idea of pure randomness implies fundamental meaning which is
value.
The following article indicates that the Universe is
fine-tuned with value.
Is the Universe a conscious mind?
Cosmopsychism might seem crazy, but it provides a robust explanatory model for how the Universe became fine-tuned with values. It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life
GE Morton wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
Meaning would be fundamental - a priori - to everything in the cosmos, even thoughts.
Well, first, denoting that presumed "fundamental" substance with the term "meaning" is a misuse of that word. But after you give it some less misleading name, what is your evidence for this primordial substance (or force or causative agent)? If it is a theoretical construct, what phenomena does it explain or predict? Is this "meaning" some sort of euphemism for "God's intention," or something like that?
The origin of a pattern (pattern = the essence of empiricality) is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern. That implies that the origin of a pattern is 'pure meaning' (good that cannot be valued).
Alternative terms for the indicated meaning are 'good per se' or truth.
The indicated meaning would be of a different nature than empirical meaning such as words and symbols. It involves a meaning that is a priori applicable and that lays at the root of conscious experience.