The Principles

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International LicenseCreative Commons License
 The quotes, images, videos etc., included in these posts come courtesy of Wikipedia,     Wikimedia, Bartlett’s, About, Google, Flixxy.com. Pixabay. Ted’s talk, Internet Archive. My sincere thanks for their service.
All my personal copy here is ‘free to use’. Images, videos, and talks I have used are classified as ‘derivative work’ and deserve proper attribution from the relevant  sources. Note my inclusion of the sources I have used.
All material is used by me in good faith to follow the Public Domain, ‘free to use’ and share policies, within the Internet structure and a non-commercial environment.

This is an introduction to a new serial format to Imperative observations. Much of the original copy will be used to allow me to post more pages.  Placeholders and their equivalent quotes will still form part of this new venture.For differences you can view ‘Imperative observations.com’, my other domain page.
Click on imperative observations on the blogroll at the side. There will be continuing additions to it. You can switch between them.
A great deal of the copy on that page will be reused in a serial fashion as has been suggested.

…………………………………………………………

Principles.

Without them we wouldn’t exist!

January 2016.

Placeholder.
Share the values we all depend on that are inherent in every principle we use.
They are everything in every language that exists when we remove dichotomies.

Page Three.

The principles.

The Weeping Philosopher

Heraclitus. The Weeping Philosopher of Ephesus. Circa (535 BCE)

Image courtesy of
Utrech_moreelse_heraclite.jpg
Wikipedia.
Heraclitus wept for the needless unconsciousness of mankind.
If Heraclitus was alive today he would weep an ocean of tears.

The proposition being that the panoramic phenomena of Mankind were unfortunately disposed toward a life that precluded them needlessly from a state of consciousness beyond their experience.
Heraclitus’s particular insights we can presume, were partially initiated by his intense interest in language composed of “pairs of opposites”.
He seemed also, to come very close to saying that there are no dichotomies when he proffered that there was a “unity of opposites”, and that there distinction was only one of difference.
The contagious effect of thinking that there is a “unity of opposites” has carried the mythology to date. The term seems simply to be a misnomer, compounded by another simpler “category mistake” which lends itself to the dilemma he faced.                                     See illustrations of “category mistakes”.  (The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle, p,17).

Heraclitus and his “unity of opposites” was displaying an adherence to “category mistakes”.
Simply put, if you are alive then you have a measurable degree of health, somewhere in the spectrum scale of health. That irrefutable conclusion leaves no room for”category mistakes”.

It is preferable if we could turn our attention to the unity of principles that are the construct of every language we use. By uniting the principal terms we can elevate the meanings we desire. Reasonable constructs and the duality of established principles always lead toward meaning. It is the only form of meaning that leads to its own extension – how else could it be?                                                                                                                                All principles (placeholders) have reciprocal value one to the other. No foundation principle can stand alone. They can only exist in union, one with the other, the source of reciprocity.

…………………………………

Placeholder.

All life lives within an absolute spectrum. That spectrum knows no dichotomies.

Bertrand Russell. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Bertrand Russell.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

‘In a logically perfect language, there will be one word and no more for every simple object, and everything that is not simple will be expressed by a combination of words, by a combination derived, of course, from the words for the simple things that enter in, one word for each simple component.’  Bertrand Russell.

‘I strongly reject any conceptual scheme that places our options on a line, and holds that the only alternative to a pair of extreme positions lies somewhere between them. More fruitful perspectives often require that we step off the line to a site outside the dichotomy.’ Stephen Jay Gould.

………………………………………….

Courtesy of Google images.

Prairie dogs. Courtesy of Google images.

A conversation.

Top dog:

“Yes! I think your right. Both human authors above seem in a strange way to be talking about the same thing. They both had created a lot of respect for their views on the human condition”.
Bottom dog:
“Why don’t their communities pay attention to it?”.
Top dog:
” In their evolution, instinctive attention apparently has lost some ground”.
Bottom dog:
“Just as well we haven’t lost our instinct – there’s a flaming big hawk circling right above us”.
Get out of here!

Continued…………………….

……………………………………………………………………

About Bridie.

When I was a young man!
This entry was posted in Absolutes, Alzheimers, Consciousness, Dichotomies, Mindfulness, Semantics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s