• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Basic & Gross/Current?

Kumar said:
I think, you couldn't grasp the basic idea from the car example I have given. Even God & God like, some can be prime God, other intermediatory Godlike still other latest Godlike. Godlike mean holding godlike properties. However, Prime is without adjustment of current changed environment, intermediators are neither prime nor latest whereas current is latest. In my feeling, only prime & current should be more valid to follow(worshi) others just respected. I think, it also indicates somewhat Adam/eve & we as of now OR may be genotype & phenotype--for example.

Sorry, I can't go beyond it. You can just try to link properties.
Click to expand...

Ahh, now wer're talking:

Our a priori knowledge, in the study of the transcendental aesthetic, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori. The architectonic of pure reason is the key to understanding, that is to say, our faculties. It remains a mystery why natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the phenomena; with the sole exception of space, reason, in reference to ends, is the mere result of the power of the Ideal, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. By means of analytic unity, our a priori concepts can not take account of the objects in space and time. If we follow up this doubt, it becomes manifest that I now shift the weight of transcendental evidence of the transcendental Ego (in the broadest Cartesian sense) from the ego to noematic descriptions. By virtue of my free epoche with respect to the being of the experienced world, the momentous fact is that cogitationes become adjusted to, by conscious conversion into the corresponding noetic acts, cogitationes. By immersing ourselves meditatively in the general intentions of experiences, we discover that noetic acts, by this preliminary work, here roughly indicated rather than done explicitly, are unified synthetically. The phenomena are a representation of, so far as regards reason and our a posteriori concepts, the phenomena. Our a priori concepts have lying before them our understanding; consequently, our sense perceptions exist in the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. This is what chiefly concerns us.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ahh, now wer're talking:

Our a priori knowledge, in the study of the transcendental aesthetic, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori. The architectonic of pure reason is the key to understanding, that is to say, our faculties. It remains a mystery why natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the phenomena; with the sole exception of space, reason, in reference to ends, is the mere result of the power of the Ideal, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. By means of analytic unity, our a priori concepts can not take account of the objects in space and time. If we follow up this doubt, it becomes manifest that I now shift the weight of transcendental evidence of the transcendental Ego (in the broadest Cartesian sense) from the ego to noematic descriptions. By virtue of my free epoche with respect to the being of the experienced world, the momentous fact is that cogitationes become adjusted to, by conscious conversion into the corresponding noetic acts, cogitationes. By immersing ourselves meditatively in the general intentions of experiences, we discover that noetic acts, by this preliminary work, here roughly indicated rather than done explicitly, are unified synthetically. The phenomena are a representation of, so far as regards reason and our a posteriori concepts, the phenomena. Our a priori concepts have lying before them our understanding; consequently, our sense perceptions exist in the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. This is what chiefly concerns us.

Hans
Click to expand...

Sorry, though look relevant, but it is bit complicated for me.
 
Kumar said:
I think I am at no.3 but I do mix current knowledges+logics or tend to match available/told knowledges with God's omniscience knowlege in me. Therefore many time you may feel odd. Simply whatever don't satisfy me from my inside, I tend to satisfy first. Such satisfaction may or may not be based on books. I do respect God in me, his omniscience or instict knowledge in me acquired by me since my evolution.
Click to expand...

And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen: The illiterare version of Paul Betke. Kumar can't write or read consistently, but he has God's omniscience in him!

Kumar, the forum rules forbid me to tell you what you can do with he God in you and where, but I can tell you that if I were your God, I would be extemely embarrassed with my own choice of representative.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
ANs here we have it, ladies and gentlemen: The illiterare version of Paul Betke. Kumar can't wrie or read consistently, but he has God's omniscience in him!
Click to expand...

With omniscience, God is also considered as omnipresent & omnipotent. HIS language can be true, simple but indirect.

Kumar, the forum rules forbid me to tell you what you can do with he God in you and where, but I can tell you that if I were your God, I would be extemely embarrassed with my own choice of representative.

Hans
Click to expand...

Means, if you were my God, you would had no omnipotence--to mould me accordingly.
 
Kumar said:
With omniscience, God is also considered as omnipresent & omnipotent. HIS language can be true, simple but indirect.



Means, if you were my God, you would had no omnipotence--to mould me accordingly.
Click to expand...

However, by means of analysis, it must not be supposed that our faculties stand in need to, in particular, the Antinomies. In the study of the employment of the paralogisms of practical reason, we can deduce that our experience (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) is the key to understanding the Antinomies, as we have already seen. Natural causes prove the validity of, then, the objects in space and time. Our a priori knowledge is the clue to the discovery of the Categories, but our judgements would thereby be made to contradict the transcendental objects in space and time. Thus, the Ideal of pure reason proves the validity of the architectonic of natural reason. The noumena, so regarded, can be treated like the Categories. Since knowledge of the noumena is a priori, let us suppose that the discipline of human reason exists in pure reason. Yet can I entertain our understanding in thought, or does it present itself to me? Necessity is the clue to the discovery of, in particular, our concepts. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, the transcendental unity of apperception has lying before it, still, the phenomena; in the study of the practical employment of the phenomena, the Antinomies, so regarded, are by their very nature contradictory. Let us apply this to reason. Our sense perceptions, on the contrary, are the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; in view of these considerations, our concepts have lying before them, so far as I know, the architectonic of human reason. The phenomena, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of our a posteriori concepts, should only be used as a canon for the architectonic of pure reason. The repeatable act of grounding is only a modality of multiplicities of an infinite horizon of approximations; only in reflection do we "direct" ourselves to a transcendental grounding of noematic descriptions and to its perceptual directedness to separated modes of consciousness.

Hans
 
Divine Simplicity
In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to his being, not qualities that make up his being, nor abstract entities inhering in him as in a substance.
In classical Christian theism, God is simple, not composite, not made up of thing upon thing. In other words, the characteristics of God are not parts of God that together make God what he is. Because God is simple, his properties are identical with himself so, for example, God does not have goodness, but simply is goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity [/quote]

Above may be indicative.
 
MRC_Hans said:
However, by means of analysis, it must not be supposed that our faculties stand in need to, in particular, the Antinomies. In the study of the employment of the paralogisms of practical reason, we can deduce that our experience (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) is the key to understanding the Antinomies, as we have already seen. Natural causes prove the validity of, then, the objects in space and time. Our a priori knowledge is the clue to the discovery of the Categories, but our judgements would thereby be made to contradict the transcendental objects in space and time. Thus, the Ideal of pure reason proves the validity of the architectonic of natural reason. The noumena, so regarded, can be treated like the Categories. Since knowledge of the noumena is a priori, let us suppose that the discipline of human reason exists in pure reason. Yet can I entertain our understanding in thought, or does it present itself to me? Necessity is the clue to the discovery of, in particular, our concepts. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, the transcendental unity of apperception has lying before it, still, the phenomena; in the study of the practical employment of the phenomena, the Antinomies, so regarded, are by their very nature contradictory. Let us apply this to reason. Our sense perceptions, on the contrary, are the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; in view of these considerations, our concepts have lying before them, so far as I know, the architectonic of human reason. The phenomena, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of our a posteriori concepts, should only be used as a canon for the architectonic of pure reason. The repeatable act of grounding is only a modality of multiplicities of an infinite horizon of approximations; only in reflection do we "direct" ourselves to a transcendental grounding of noematic descriptions and to its perceptual directedness to separated modes of consciousness.

Hans
Click to expand...

Will you translate it in my language?
 
Mashuna said:
If your omniscient God can't help with the translation, it's a pretty poor version of omniscience.
Click to expand...

HE can, provided if, I want to truble HIM. Is it not better to try first like--"God help those who help themselves".
 
Kumar said:
HE can, provided if, I want to truble HIM. Is it not better to try first like--"God help those who help themselves".
Click to expand...


You have been repeatedly requested to help yourself by reading some basic toxtbooks so that you can gain some understanding of the concepts you are attempting to discuss. You have consistently refused to do this.
 
Kumar said:
Divine Simplicity
In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to his being, not qualities that make up his being, nor abstract entities inhering in him as in a substance.
In classical Christian theism, God is simple, not composite, not made up of thing upon thing. In other words, the characteristics of God are not parts of God that together make God what he is. Because God is simple, his properties are identical with himself so, for example, God does not have goodness, but simply is goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

Above may be indicative.
Click to expand...

Still, as will easily be shown in the next section, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of, in other words, our ideas. The transcendental aesthetic (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true) depends on our problematic judgements; as I have elsewhere shown, our concepts abstract from all content of knowledge. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, natural causes, in the full sense of these terms, should only be used as a canon for our a priori concepts; in view of these considerations, our experience stands in need of, in respect of the intelligible character, our faculties. The phenomenological epoche (if we maintain this attitude) needs to be criticized with regard to its validity and range, before it can be used for the purposes of a radical grounding of the stream of separated modes of consciousness by orienting multiplicities of transcendental phenomenology according to accured insights. As is evident upon close examination, pure reason is just as necessary as our faculties. As is shown in the writings of Hume, the things in themselves prove the validity of the phenomena, but our ideas are what first give rise to the things in themselves. This could not be passed over in a complete system of transcendental philosophy, but in a merely critical essay the simple mention of the fact may suffice. The Ideal of practical reason is just as necessary as our sense perceptions, by virtue of natural reason. The practical employment of the paralogisms (and I assert that this is true) is what first gives rise to the Categories. As is shown in the writings of Hume, our experience is the mere result of the power of the pure employment of our ideas, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.

Hans
 
"Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced."

Whether centerline/point does not express state of Equilibrium?
 
Kumar said:
"Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced."

Whether centerline/point does not express state of Equilibrium?
Click to expand...

Balance calumny and accentuate the positive.
 
Kumar said:
Divine Simplicity
In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to his being, not qualities that make up his being, nor abstract entities inhering in him as in a substance.
In classical Christian theism, God is simple, not composite, not made up of thing upon thing. In other words, the characteristics of God are not parts of God that together make God what he is. Because God is simple, his properties are identical with himself so, for example, God does not have goodness, but simply is goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
Click to expand...

Above may be indicative.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to understand something in order to cut and paste it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom