In BFC Session-9 we had a very interesting conversation leading to a challenge for all of us through the week. I can feel being in the middle of the philosophical activity and am surprised, how quick we reached there. Will soon upload the recording in the session-9, for those who missed the session.
The challenge is:
How do we philosophically analyse the statement “X made Y” without invoking any prior knowledge or ideas?
To begin with, here are some of my approaches. X and Y can be any entity or sets of entities.
What is it “to make” something?
Does everything require making or maker? Can’t entities exist without a maker?
Like maths equation we have to consider X and Y and by this we have to make further approaches.
So, suppose their is X.
From X we generated Y
So, Y is consider under X
So, we can write
X(Y) and also we can write X>Y or X=Y.
Because X made Y so X will be greater than Y or equal to Y
Means as we are considering statement x made Y. So, I am considering some cases like if X made Y, then X should be greater than Y
Or X and Y are equal. Of it is made from X like that.
I am not claiming this.
Just I am suggesting like proving the statement by considering the condition
Consider a machine, a cycle for example. You could have one person building an entire bicycle.
Now consider an assembly line. Each person - or machine - doing a specific job making a specific part. Often not having the faintest clue about the end use of that part.
In the case of one person building a bicycle, that person depends on several hundred innovations and discoveries and inventions in metallurgy and machines, each of which did not have the faintest clue about a bicycle. Remove those previous layers and you wont have a bicycle.
By your logic the original Cu smelter - or should it be the fire creator, if we choose to wind back even further - should be >= cycle maker.
Yes that’s why I am saying we have start from 0 and consider the first condition and then search for various case.
Means when we discuss on barefoot chat we have to start as a blank. Because we have come across many generation we have some past memories as we study explore we will involve the point on that experience.
So, we have to differentiate it and we have to consider different scenarios.
By that we can get RAW thoughts and on chat we can generate equation or assumption of different case study.
Means I am considering it as a math equation here. But when we talk on barefoot chat we don’t have to think we just have to proceed with RAW thoughts without considering any cases.
Because if we consider like that we will reach to that state of beginning.
Just I want to make notation means if we are considering any situation we doesn’t understand language also, so we have to build that also just I am giving cases 8n the form equation
I want develop from beginning.
Just for straight forward reply I will say I want to build the language means by which we can get closer to counter the our thought process and we can talk in terms of patterns or shape by just responding not by thinking.
But what if the reality is a fractal structure. If I make this assumption, it does not matter where I start, and I never have to start from the beginning or worry about the end. We assume that there must be a beginning, but we drop that assumption, then we are able to work and understand what we have in front of us. If the world pattern is a fractal, which implies that there is self-similarity at every layer of reality, then the pattern reveals itself everywhere.
What I am exploring is what if we ignore the beginning and end, and deal with the patterns and not the matter in what is in front of us.
This is what happens when we start assuming things, materials, equations in philosophy!
We come across different dimensions of the same object and everytime we put forward an answer, explanation, it works (appears to fit-in)! @punkish’s approach is objective while earlier we were talking in terms of subjectivity.
right and have not think like this way 