https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p1
But I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. — Pfhorrest
Your implication may be correct that this forum is not frequented primarily by academically-trained philosophers, but mostly by amateur & self-taught thinkers like me. Your interests, and I assume your training, are directed toward very abstruse & abstract topics. But many posters here use the forum to share gossip about politicians and viral pandemics, instead of pondering Liberty/Ethics/Justice, or the Viral Memes of Sophistry.
I hope you will continue to post here. I find your comments enlightening. But I admit that most of your linked stuff is way over my head. What's "fun" for me is the challenge of convincing people who know it all that I know more than they do. . . . Just kidding. :snicker:
Phil Forum : Why Philosophy? off-topic
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p2
The connections between the different parts of philosophy, the structures and symmetries within it, was in turn the most interesting part of philosophy to me, and getting a better and more detailed understanding of that big picture of philosophy as a whole, and its relation to other fields, was the most interesting part of studying philosophy in college. — Pfhorrest
Perhaps what you are working on is a comprehensive philosophical WorldView. I created a website to present my thesis of the "big picture", which I called Enformationism, as a counterpoint to the two most common modern worldviews : A> Spiritualism and B> Materialism. Like you, I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out.
Ironically, it's both A & B. Regardless of its lack of popular appeal though, the thesis has served its primary purpose : to organize a clear picture in my own mind of how & why the world works as it does, and its relationship to me. This is a replacement for the basically Spiritualist perspective of my religious training, and the Materialist cosmology of my scientific learning. Anyway, I'm still motivated to develop that thesis by interfacing with others focused more on the tiny bits & pieces of philosophy : such as "whether chairs exist".
The connections between the different parts of philosophy, the structures and symmetries within it, was in turn the most interesting part of philosophy to me, and getting a better and more detailed understanding of that big picture of philosophy as a whole, and its relation to other fields, was the most interesting part of studying philosophy in college. — Pfhorrest
Perhaps what you are working on is a comprehensive philosophical WorldView. I created a website to present my thesis of the "big picture", which I called Enformationism, as a counterpoint to the two most common modern worldviews : A> Spiritualism and B> Materialism. Like you, I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out.
Ironically, it's both A & B. Regardless of its lack of popular appeal though, the thesis has served its primary purpose : to organize a clear picture in my own mind of how & why the world works as it does, and its relationship to me. This is a replacement for the basically Spiritualist perspective of my religious training, and the Materialist cosmology of my scientific learning. Anyway, I'm still motivated to develop that thesis by interfacing with others focused more on the tiny bits & pieces of philosophy : such as "whether chairs exist".
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics. — praxis
Ha! You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out."
Ha, ha! If I spend so much time on the Enformationism project in order to make money (material gain), I'm a profound failure, and an abject fool. Please don't quote me on that.
Ha, ha, ha! The Enformationism welcome page specifically indicates that it is not intended to be a typical academic paper on some well-documented philosophical doctrine : "I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously."
Ha! You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out."
Ha, ha! If I spend so much time on the Enformationism project in order to make money (material gain), I'm a profound failure, and an abject fool. Please don't quote me on that.
Ha, ha, ha! The Enformationism welcome page specifically indicates that it is not intended to be a typical academic paper on some well-documented philosophical doctrine : "I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously."
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p2
Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.
What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu
I'm not familiar with John Collier (sci-fi writer??). Where can I find his erroneous spelling of "Information" with an "E". Google doesn't show any connection between Collier and "Enformation". Was there any particular significance to the misspelling?
I chose that spelling in part because the term "Informationism" was already out there as a reference to ideological propaganda. And partly because of the connection between Information and Energy, as in my neologism, EnFormAction.
Enformation : Obsolete form of "information".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enformation
EnFormAction : "the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
PS__Apparently, praxis has a philosophical view that is "well-established", and Enformationism ain't it.
Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.
What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu
I'm not familiar with John Collier (sci-fi writer??). Where can I find his erroneous spelling of "Information" with an "E". Google doesn't show any connection between Collier and "Enformation". Was there any particular significance to the misspelling?
I chose that spelling in part because the term "Informationism" was already out there as a reference to ideological propaganda. And partly because of the connection between Information and Energy, as in my neologism, EnFormAction.
Enformation : Obsolete form of "information".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enformation
EnFormAction : "the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
PS__Apparently, praxis has a philosophical view that is "well-established", and Enformationism ain't it.
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p2
I have no idea of what your weird idea is. — praxis
You could say that Enformationism is a 21st century version of ancient Platonism (metaphysics) combined with Aristotelianism (physics).
Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
I have no idea of what your weird idea is. — praxis
You could say that Enformationism is a 21st century version of ancient Platonism (metaphysics) combined with Aristotelianism (physics).
Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p3
I recognise that both you and Gnomon have relatively complete philosophical systems mapped out, which you continue to reference during discussions. I’ve started down that rabbit hole a few times, and while I was excited to read elements of my own philosophy reflected back to me, I eventually got lost in a sea of complex scientific concepts or neologisms. I wonder if either of you have considered condensing your system into something that fits onto a t-shirt? — Possibility
I'm aware that philosophy is not an emotion-driven game, but hard rational work. Hence it will never be as popular as shoot-em-up video games. But, in writing the Enformationism thesis, I was driven by the philosopher's emotion : Love of Wisdom. It was an attempt to put my random thoughts into an organized form, so I could objectively see what I was subjectively thinking. That probing process continues in my blog, and in this forum. It was never about popularity, or ego-boosting, or fantasy fun. But, for a target audience of one, it has been very successful.
I have played with the notion of summarizing the thesis of Enformationism in a T-shirt logo. But I'm not there yet. Here's a crude first pass at a concise equation of "Information" :
E = MC^∞.
Where "E" is EnFormAction ; "M" is the Macrocosm ; and "C" is Constant Creativity ; and the exponent is Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity).
Unfortunately, few six year olds would find that informative, or fun. So, back to the old drawing board.
EnFormAction :
En- __ is the power (Energy) to cause something to change state.
-Form- __ is the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
-Action __ the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.
Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
PS__another T-shirt epigram : "Mother Nature Begets Herself".
I recognise that both you and Gnomon have relatively complete philosophical systems mapped out, which you continue to reference during discussions. I’ve started down that rabbit hole a few times, and while I was excited to read elements of my own philosophy reflected back to me, I eventually got lost in a sea of complex scientific concepts or neologisms. I wonder if either of you have considered condensing your system into something that fits onto a t-shirt? — Possibility
I'm aware that philosophy is not an emotion-driven game, but hard rational work. Hence it will never be as popular as shoot-em-up video games. But, in writing the Enformationism thesis, I was driven by the philosopher's emotion : Love of Wisdom. It was an attempt to put my random thoughts into an organized form, so I could objectively see what I was subjectively thinking. That probing process continues in my blog, and in this forum. It was never about popularity, or ego-boosting, or fantasy fun. But, for a target audience of one, it has been very successful.
I have played with the notion of summarizing the thesis of Enformationism in a T-shirt logo. But I'm not there yet. Here's a crude first pass at a concise equation of "Information" :
E = MC^∞.
Where "E" is EnFormAction ; "M" is the Macrocosm ; and "C" is Constant Creativity ; and the exponent is Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity).
Unfortunately, few six year olds would find that informative, or fun. So, back to the old drawing board.
EnFormAction :
En- __ is the power (Energy) to cause something to change state.
-Form- __ is the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
-Action __ the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.
Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
PS__another T-shirt epigram : "Mother Nature Begets Herself".
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p3
I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain. — Pfhorrest
I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine : Escaping The Academic Coal Mine. The author says, "I am currently crafting an article that tinkers with aspects of John Rawls" political theory that are so esoteric that they're probably of no interest to anyone not trapped inside the same isolated bubble. So why do it?" He also notes that "82% of academic articles in the humanities are not cited. Not once." Then he wonders, "If research is not being read beyond a nerdy few, is it worth doing, at least in a professional context? Shouldn't it rather be a hobby?"
I'm long retired, and don't depend on my philosophical scrivenings for income or professional advancement. So for me, my tinkering with cosmological ideas is just a hobby, like collecting stamps. Wanna see my cosmic worldview stamp collection?
I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain. — Pfhorrest
I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine : Escaping The Academic Coal Mine. The author says, "I am currently crafting an article that tinkers with aspects of John Rawls" political theory that are so esoteric that they're probably of no interest to anyone not trapped inside the same isolated bubble. So why do it?" He also notes that "82% of academic articles in the humanities are not cited. Not once." Then he wonders, "If research is not being read beyond a nerdy few, is it worth doing, at least in a professional context? Shouldn't it rather be a hobby?"
I'm long retired, and don't depend on my philosophical scrivenings for income or professional advancement. So for me, my tinkering with cosmological ideas is just a hobby, like collecting stamps. Wanna see my cosmic worldview stamp collection?
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... we-here/p3
↪Gnomon
What's weird about a form of idealism? — praxis
What's uncanny about Enformationism is that it reconciles Idealism with Realism and Spiritualism with Materialism. It's based on the cutting-edge scientific concept that immaterial Information --- not atoms, not water, not fire --- is the fundamental "stuff" of the world. Everything, from Matter to Mind, is a form of Information, including the Energy & Selection Algorithms that propel evolution. You could think of Enformationism as a 21st century atomic hypothesis, in which the "particles" are not things, but ideas or relationships.
Is Information Fundamental ? : Does information work at the deep levels of physics, including quantum theory, undergirding the fundamental forces and particles? But what is the essence of information—describing how the world works or being how the world works. There is a huge difference. Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/in ... undamental
↪Gnomon
What's weird about a form of idealism? — praxis
What's uncanny about Enformationism is that it reconciles Idealism with Realism and Spiritualism with Materialism. It's based on the cutting-edge scientific concept that immaterial Information --- not atoms, not water, not fire --- is the fundamental "stuff" of the world. Everything, from Matter to Mind, is a form of Information, including the Energy & Selection Algorithms that propel evolution. You could think of Enformationism as a 21st century atomic hypothesis, in which the "particles" are not things, but ideas or relationships.
Is Information Fundamental ? : Does information work at the deep levels of physics, including quantum theory, undergirding the fundamental forces and particles? But what is the essence of information—describing how the world works or being how the world works. There is a huge difference. Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/in ... undamental
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/408827
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis
Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?
Please keep sniping at my thesis. I enjoy defending it against outdated conventional views.
Single Substance : "According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world."
"Thus, in his [Aristotle] hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form." [En-Form-Action]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis
Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?
Please keep sniping at my thesis. I enjoy defending it against outdated conventional views.
Single Substance : "According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world."
"Thus, in his [Aristotle] hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form." [En-Form-Action]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Re: Phil Forum : Why are you here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/408827
That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it. — Pfhorrest
As usual, this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worldview.
Anyway, I just found another online article that is relevant to your own plight . . . at least, in the title. Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary: Why Unread Books Are More Valuable to Our Lives than Read Ones.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/umbe ... ket-newtab
My own website is technically not a book, but it is generally "unread". That's due in part to my own failings, but also to the incomprehension of those who can't grok an unconventional idea. Most people are "looking for" new ideas that fit neatly into their pre-existing worldview, rather than ideas that challenge old views. Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? In bookstores, the philosophy shelf is a fraction of the fiction shelves.
Ironically, you were expecting to find a select few readers on this forum that do understand and appreciate philosophical thinking. But many, like me, are so involved in their own little projects, that they don't have time for yours. So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found?
Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it. — Pfhorrest
As usual, this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worldview.
Anyway, I just found another online article that is relevant to your own plight . . . at least, in the title. Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary: Why Unread Books Are More Valuable to Our Lives than Read Ones.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/umbe ... ket-newtab
My own website is technically not a book, but it is generally "unread". That's due in part to my own failings, but also to the incomprehension of those who can't grok an unconventional idea. Most people are "looking for" new ideas that fit neatly into their pre-existing worldview, rather than ideas that challenge old views. Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? In bookstores, the philosophy shelf is a fraction of the fiction shelves.
Ironically, you were expecting to find a select few readers on this forum that do understand and appreciate philosophical thinking. But many, like me, are so involved in their own little projects, that they don't have time for yours. So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found?
Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests