On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:28:55 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

Assuming that "known" and "knowable" are disjoint, ie, neither property
entails the other, there are four possibilities:
1. known and knowable
2. known and unknowable
3. unknown and knowable
4. unknown and unknowable

Since case 2 is absurd, "known" and "knowable" are not disjoint. Back to the
drawing board....

On 3 Feb 2004 11:32:18 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<401d2a3b.23784866@netnews.att.net>...
Four Laws of Ideation
---------

Four laws which describe the experimental properties of an
intellectual condensate are:

#1 Your idea is indecipherable - and if not

#2 Your idea is wrong - and if not

#3 Your idea is not original - and if not

#4 I thought of it first.

I'm probably somewhere between #1 and #3 with my idea of differences
as the universal cause for all things known and knowable and
differences between differences as the universal cause of sentience.
However with sufficient perseverance I'm sure I'll get to #4 soon
enough.

Regards - Lester


Lester,
If differences are the cause for all things known and knowable,
this still leaves the unknown and the unknowable as possibly being
caused by something else.

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

I won't be so cheeky as to ask you to give
me an example of something you don't know; however, what sort of
things can you think of that might fall into the category of
"unknowable"?

Things unknowable would certainly include anything not subject to
differences.

In practical terms I think this may well include the ether and would
also include differences themselves. In other words I doubt we could
say much about any spatial ether if there are no differences in it
except perhaps as reflected in Planck's constant. And I see no
possible way at all to explain differences in general terms because
they represent the means of explanation. Differences explain one
another in particular but there can be no explanation as to why
differences exist in general.

If there aren't any, then it just leaves the unknown as
possibly being caused by something else. But, of course, when we
define a member of that set, it automatically becomes known and
"becomes" caused by differences. Therefore, the unknown can be
eliminated from "what might be caused by something other than
differences". Still we have the unknowable!! Is it possible to
discuss the unknowable? Or do we end up sounding like H.P. Lovecraft
and his "From Beyond"? Is the unknowable that which science can not
delineate? Or is it simply things like "A can never know exactly what
B's dreams are like"? But B might be able to write the dream down and
share the experience. Then, B might be blind yet still dream in
colour. How would B know?

Well apart from differences in general things unknowable in principle
would have to be only those things which are for some reason we don't
understand not subject to differences as matter of principle. However
I'm inclined to suggest that any such thing would be circumscribable
in terms of differences by things which are knowable and thus would be
subject to differences to that extent.

So I have to conclude that all things are subject to differences in
this respect and thus are in fact knowable.

Also, that which caused things to be different might be
considered to be omnipotent. That is, whatever performed the first
differentiation or, indeed, differentiated itself into that which is
knowable through differentiation could well be deemed God from this
perspective. That perspective is VERY kabbalistic in origin. You
might do yourself a favour by taking a look at kabbalistic theory, in
that it serves as a basis for defining everything with respect to how
it formed from the differentiation of the unity that is God and how
that unity formed from nothing. It's something I've studied for about
25 years now and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface, as
there's 3500+ years of material at which to look.

Well it's always good to hear from you, Pat, because your
contributions are invariably well intended and occasionally amusing.
However I fear I would be amiss if I allowed science to run in the
direction of mysticism kabbalistic or otherwise. Science is what it is
because differences and differences between differences etc. are what
they are and are themselves definitively and demonstrably so in terms
of themselves.

On the other hand the cause and origin of differences in general can
never be known for the reasons indicated above. However that does not
suggest that differences can have been created either. It's the same
reason there can be no existential singularities in black holes or
anywhere else. Differences are eternal apparently because the
alternative in the absence of differences can't cause anything
knowable in terms of differences and anything not knowable in terms of
differences isn't knowable at all.

Don't use simple binary logic if you want to apply your
analysis to reality and how it changes.

Patty

Jason - I apologize if you consider that these canons were directed
at you. They certainly weren't. They're more on the order of gallows
humor or as Mad magazine used to put it humor in a jugular vein.

I've always found our exchanges and those of others interesting and
valuable because they force me to refine arguments dramatically to
address misunderstandings that occur.

Don't you hate it when you have to explain your humour :)

Yeah. Even more so when the explanation falls flat. I guess you had to

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:28:55 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

Assuming that "known" and "knowable" are disjoint, ie, neither property
entails the other, there are four possibilities:
1. known and knowable
2. known and unknowable
3. unknown and knowable
4. unknown and unknowable

Since case 2 is absurd, "known" and "knowable" are not disjoint. Back to the
drawing board....

Oh, I dunno. I see lots of people who know the unknowable.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:28:55 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

Assuming that "known" and "knowable" are disjoint, ie, neither property
entails the other, there are four possibilities:
1. known and knowable
2. known and unknowable
3. unknown and knowable
4. unknown and unknowable

Since case 2 is absurd, "known" and "knowable" are not disjoint. Back to the
drawing board....

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hsjisr0.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca>...

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:28:55 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:


Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

Assuming that "known" and "knowable" are disjoint, ie, neither property
entails the other, there are four possibilities:
1. known and knowable
2. known and unknowable
3. unknown and knowable
4. unknown and unknowable

Since case 2 is absurd, "known" and "knowable" are not disjoint. Back to the
drawing board....


Good observation. Do you think that's an analytical argument?

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<40202e55.65880948@netnews.att.net>...
On 3 Feb 2004 11:32:18 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<401d2a3b.23784866@netnews.att.net>...
Four Laws of Ideation
---------

Four laws which describe the experimental properties of an
intellectual condensate are:

#1 Your idea is indecipherable - and if not

#2 Your idea is wrong - and if not

#3 Your idea is not original - and if not

#4 I thought of it first.

I'm probably somewhere between #1 and #3 with my idea of differences
as the universal cause for all things known and knowable and
differences between differences as the universal cause of sentience.
However with sufficient perseverance I'm sure I'll get to #4 soon
enough.

Regards - Lester


Lester,
If differences are the cause for all things known and knowable,
this still leaves the unknown and the unknowable as possibly being
caused by something else.

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

I won't be so cheeky as to ask you to give
me an example of something you don't know; however, what sort of
things can you think of that might fall into the category of
"unknowable"?

Things unknowable would certainly include anything not subject to
differences.

In practical terms I think this may well include the ether and would
also include differences themselves. In other words I doubt we could
say much about any spatial ether if there are no differences in it
except perhaps as reflected in Planck's constant. And I see no
possible way at all to explain differences in general terms because
they represent the means of explanation. Differences explain one
another in particular but there can be no explanation as to why
differences exist in general.

If there aren't any, then it just leaves the unknown as
possibly being caused by something else. But, of course, when we
define a member of that set, it automatically becomes known and
"becomes" caused by differences. Therefore, the unknown can be
eliminated from "what might be caused by something other than
differences". Still we have the unknowable!! Is it possible to
discuss the unknowable? Or do we end up sounding like H.P. Lovecraft
and his "From Beyond"? Is the unknowable that which science can not
delineate? Or is it simply things like "A can never know exactly what
B's dreams are like"? But B might be able to write the dream down and
share the experience. Then, B might be blind yet still dream in
colour. How would B know?

Well apart from differences in general things unknowable in principle
would have to be only those things which are for some reason we don't
understand not subject to differences as matter of principle. However
I'm inclined to suggest that any such thing would be circumscribable
in terms of differences by things which are knowable and thus would be
subject to differences to that extent.

So I have to conclude that all things are subject to differences in
this respect and thus are in fact knowable.

Also, that which caused things to be different might be
considered to be omnipotent. That is, whatever performed the first
differentiation or, indeed, differentiated itself into that which is
knowable through differentiation could well be deemed God from this
perspective. That perspective is VERY kabbalistic in origin. You
might do yourself a favour by taking a look at kabbalistic theory, in
that it serves as a basis for defining everything with respect to how
it formed from the differentiation of the unity that is God and how
that unity formed from nothing. It's something I've studied for about
25 years now and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface, as
there's 3500+ years of material at which to look.

Well it's always good to hear from you, Pat, because your
contributions are invariably well intended and occasionally amusing.
However I fear I would be amiss if I allowed science to run in the
direction of mysticism kabbalistic or otherwise. Science is what it is
because differences and differences between differences etc. are what
they are and are themselves definitively and demonstrably so in terms
of themselves.

On the other hand the cause and origin of differences in general can
never be known for the reasons indicated above. However that does not
suggest that differences can have been created either. It's the same
reason there can be no existential singularities in black holes or
anywhere else. Differences are eternal apparently because the
alternative in the absence of differences can't cause anything
knowable in terms of differences and anything not knowable in terms of
differences isn't knowable at all.


Lester,
You can't say that the cause and origin of differences in general
can never be known because you already admitted above that you "have
to conclude that all things are subject to differences...and thus are
in fact knowable". Either all means all or it doesn't, even if I left
out the qualifying "in this respect".

All I'm saying is there may be
non-scientific ways of knowing, i.e., unprovable ways. Thus, the
ancients' phrase "to know in one's heart". I believe you may be right
about differences but I also believe it to be very difficult to prove
some areas of it, e.g., differences in general.

Yet you "feel" it's
right. So don't allow the science to run in the direction of
mysticism. Do like I do and let the mysticism run in the direction of
science; I feel it can and does quite easily.

It can make the
differences known as "revelation", "inspiration" and "intuition" work
for you. I'm not trying to get all religious here, I just think/feel
that science does have its boundaries and, until the scientific window
opens a bit more in these areas, we may have to use older
methodologies for learning some things. Remember, although we have
nuclear weapons, a rock cast from a sling can still kill even if it is
considered obsolete.

I disagree, on kabbalistic grounds, with your concept that the
absence of differences can't cause anything knowable. E.g., If the
only thing that is is "Not". Not applied to itself, i.e., "Not(not)",
will yield everything. This is a kabbalistic decoding of John 1:1.
"In the beginning was the Word. (the word being 'not') And the Word
was God. (in that it had the power to create) And the Word was with
God. (thus the recursive Not(not)) Again, I'm not(!) trying to wax
religiously, just pointing out a time-honoured method of codifying
just the sort of concepts you're playing with.

On 4 Feb 2004 05:25:51 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<40202e55.65880948@netnews.att.net>...
On 3 Feb 2004 11:32:18 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<401d2a3b.23784866@netnews.att.net>...
Four Laws of Ideation
---------

Four laws which describe the experimental properties of an
intellectual condensate are:

#1 Your idea is indecipherable - and if not

#2 Your idea is wrong - and if not

#3 Your idea is not original - and if not

#4 I thought of it first.

I'm probably somewhere between #1 and #3 with my idea of differences
as the universal cause for all things known and knowable and
differences between differences as the universal cause of sentience.
However with sufficient perseverance I'm sure I'll get to #4 soon
enough.

Regards - Lester


Lester,
If differences are the cause for all things known and knowable,
this still leaves the unknown and the unknowable as possibly being
caused by something else.

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

I won't be so cheeky as to ask you to give
me an example of something you don't know; however, what sort of
things can you think of that might fall into the category of
"unknowable"?

Things unknowable would certainly include anything not subject to
differences.

In practical terms I think this may well include the ether and would
also include differences themselves. In other words I doubt we could
say much about any spatial ether if there are no differences in it
except perhaps as reflected in Planck's constant. And I see no
possible way at all to explain differences in general terms because
they represent the means of explanation. Differences explain one
another in particular but there can be no explanation as to why
differences exist in general.

If there aren't any, then it just leaves the unknown as
possibly being caused by something else. But, of course, when we
define a member of that set, it automatically becomes known and
"becomes" caused by differences. Therefore, the unknown can be
eliminated from "what might be caused by something other than
differences". Still we have the unknowable!! Is it possible to
discuss the unknowable? Or do we end up sounding like H.P. Lovecraft
and his "From Beyond"? Is the unknowable that which science can not
delineate? Or is it simply things like "A can never know exactly what
B's dreams are like"? But B might be able to write the dream down and
share the experience. Then, B might be blind yet still dream in
colour. How would B know?

Well apart from differences in general things unknowable in principle
would have to be only those things which are for some reason we don't
understand not subject to differences as matter of principle. However
I'm inclined to suggest that any such thing would be circumscribable
in terms of differences by things which are knowable and thus would be
subject to differences to that extent.

So I have to conclude that all things are subject to differences in
this respect and thus are in fact knowable.

Also, that which caused things to be different might be
considered to be omnipotent. That is, whatever performed the first
differentiation or, indeed, differentiated itself into that which is
knowable through differentiation could well be deemed God from this
perspective. That perspective is VERY kabbalistic in origin. You
might do yourself a favour by taking a look at kabbalistic theory, in
that it serves as a basis for defining everything with respect to how
it formed from the differentiation of the unity that is God and how
that unity formed from nothing. It's something I've studied for about
25 years now and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface, as
there's 3500+ years of material at which to look.

Well it's always good to hear from you, Pat, because your
contributions are invariably well intended and occasionally amusing.
However I fear I would be amiss if I allowed science to run in the
direction of mysticism kabbalistic or otherwise. Science is what it is
because differences and differences between differences etc. are what
they are and are themselves definitively and demonstrably so in terms
of themselves.

On the other hand the cause and origin of differences in general can
never be known for the reasons indicated above. However that does not
suggest that differences can have been created either. It's the same
reason there can be no existential singularities in black holes or
anywhere else. Differences are eternal apparently because the
alternative in the absence of differences can't cause anything
knowable in terms of differences and anything not knowable in terms of
differences isn't knowable at all.


Lester,
You can't say that the cause and origin of differences in general
can never be known because you already admitted above that you "have
to conclude that all things are subject to differences...and thus are
in fact knowable". Either all means all or it doesn't, even if I left
out the qualifying "in this respect".

Pat, I think there is a misinterpretation here. I say P "differences"
is proven for everything because conceivable alternatives Q "different
from differences" is universally self contradictory. And in this sense
we do know differences. However the sense in which differences are
known is by universal exclusion from alternatives and the knowledge in
this sense is negative.

Which means we cannot know differences in relation to anything else
the way we know A in relation to C by means of differences. And this
means that differences have and can have had no cause in general
because there is no predicate of differences except itself. Can anyone
say prime mover unmoved?

All I'm saying is there may be
non-scientific ways of knowing, i.e., unprovable ways. Thus, the
ancients' phrase "to know in one's heart". I believe you may be right
about differences but I also believe it to be very difficult to prove
some areas of it, e.g., differences in general.

Well there are certainly many non scientific ways of gaining
information. The term knowledge technically in scientific terms
refers to demonstrated information or as I would say demonstrated
judgment.

And there are two ways of looking at proof in this connection.
Alternatives to P "differences" are inherently self contradictory. So
I have proven that alternative methods of gaining information or
knowledge antithetical to or inconsistent with differences are
necessarily self contradictory.

On the other hand explaining alternatives consistent with differences
just means showing how various alternatives are mechanized in terms of
differences which is a different but ongoing process. I've managed to
assign specific meanings to things like consciousness, cognition, free
will, intuition, instinct, imagination, etc. that prove consistent
with the basic idea of differences and differences between differences
but not everyone agrees with my interpretations.

Yet you "feel" it's
right. So don't allow the science to run in the direction of
mysticism. Do like I do and let the mysticism run in the direction of
science; I feel it can and does quite easily.

This is actually quite a valid point. I stand corrected. Your
perspective is preferable.

It can make the
differences known as "revelation", "inspiration" and "intuition" work
for you. I'm not trying to get all religious here, I just think/feel
that science does have its boundaries and, until the scientific window
opens a bit more in these areas, we may have to use older
methodologies for learning some things. Remember, although we have
nuclear weapons, a rock cast from a sling can still kill even if it is
considered obsolete.

What I would like you to understand however is that there is a
definite distinction between the mystic and mysticism. Mysticism is a
doctrinal approach to issues of science and scientific discovery that
makes certain universal claims. I can and do acknowedge that discovery
of scientific knowledge is a desultory process that can only be
trained but can never be systematized. And to this extent we can
considered it to be mystic. But mysticism or cabalism or whatever form
of mysticism you prefer gives the misleading impression that its
doctrines represent a systematic approach to discovery and science in
general.

Which is not true. Science is the systematic approach to knowledge in
general. And as a systematic approach it is certainly systematizable.
However the discovery of knowledge scienitific and otherwise cannot
be. Discovery is a trainable but ultimately happenstantial process.

I disagree, on kabbalistic grounds, with your concept that the
absence of differences can't cause anything knowable. E.g., If the
only thing that is is "Not". Not applied to itself, i.e., "Not(not)",
will yield everything. This is a kabbalistic decoding of John 1:1.
"In the beginning was the Word. (the word being 'not') And the Word
was God. (in that it had the power to create) And the Word was with
God. (thus the recursive Not(not)) Again, I'm not(!) trying to wax
religiously, just pointing out a time-honoured method of codifying
just the sort of concepts you're playing with.

Actually Pat I frankly amazed at some of the advanced insights you're
achieving in this little essay. Going for your master's?

Once convinced of the self consistently demonstrable power of
differences and differences between differences, I began applying the
principle to any area I could including the very one you mention
directly above and I reached exactly the same conclusion.

But I have avoided pursuing the subject publicly because I am
preoccupied with establishing the principles P "differences" and S
"differences between differences" first. And while I don't mind being
considered a D-ist I don't want to be considered a deist or worse yet
a theist. And indeed I consider that the phrasing "In the beginning
was the word and the word was god" - rather than with god - may
actually reflect some ancient insight into the topic at least of
predication if not differences.

However notnot only yields an absence difference happenstantially and
when it does the absence of difference is never an identity except in
the one case of self contradiction A not A. This is why the very idea
of self contradiction is universally known to be useless just because
the uniform absence of difference cannot cause anything if we suppose
the presence of difference can and does. And we can and do.

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4021699a.75397903@netnews.att.net>...
On 4 Feb 2004 05:25:51 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<40202e55.65880948@netnews.att.net>...
On 3 Feb 2004 11:32:18 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<401d2a3b.23784866@netnews.att.net>...
Four Laws of Ideation
---------

Four laws which describe the experimental properties of an
intellectual condensate are:

#1 Your idea is indecipherable - and if not

#2 Your idea is wrong - and if not

#3 Your idea is not original - and if not

#4 I thought of it first.

I'm probably somewhere between #1 and #3 with my idea of differences
as the universal cause for all things known and knowable and
differences between differences as the universal cause of sentience.
However with sufficient perseverance I'm sure I'll get to #4 soon
enough.

Regards - Lester


Lester,
If differences are the cause for all things known and knowable,
this still leaves the unknown and the unknowable as possibly being
caused by something else.

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

I won't be so cheeky as to ask you to give
me an example of something you don't know; however, what sort of
things can you think of that might fall into the category of
"unknowable"?

Things unknowable would certainly include anything not subject to
differences.

In practical terms I think this may well include the ether and would
also include differences themselves. In other words I doubt we could
say much about any spatial ether if there are no differences in it
except perhaps as reflected in Planck's constant. And I see no
possible way at all to explain differences in general terms because
they represent the means of explanation. Differences explain one
another in particular but there can be no explanation as to why
differences exist in general.

If there aren't any, then it just leaves the unknown as
possibly being caused by something else. But, of course, when we
define a member of that set, it automatically becomes known and
"becomes" caused by differences. Therefore, the unknown can be
eliminated from "what might be caused by something other than
differences". Still we have the unknowable!! Is it possible to
discuss the unknowable? Or do we end up sounding like H.P. Lovecraft
and his "From Beyond"? Is the unknowable that which science can not
delineate? Or is it simply things like "A can never know exactly what
B's dreams are like"? But B might be able to write the dream down and
share the experience. Then, B might be blind yet still dream in
colour. How would B know?

Well apart from differences in general things unknowable in principle
would have to be only those things which are for some reason we don't
understand not subject to differences as matter of principle. However
I'm inclined to suggest that any such thing would be circumscribable
in terms of differences by things which are knowable and thus would be
subject to differences to that extent.

So I have to conclude that all things are subject to differences in
this respect and thus are in fact knowable.

Also, that which caused things to be different might be
considered to be omnipotent. That is, whatever performed the first
differentiation or, indeed, differentiated itself into that which is
knowable through differentiation could well be deemed God from this
perspective. That perspective is VERY kabbalistic in origin. You
might do yourself a favour by taking a look at kabbalistic theory, in
that it serves as a basis for defining everything with respect to how
it formed from the differentiation of the unity that is God and how
that unity formed from nothing. It's something I've studied for about
25 years now and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface, as
there's 3500+ years of material at which to look.

Well it's always good to hear from you, Pat, because your
contributions are invariably well intended and occasionally amusing.
However I fear I would be amiss if I allowed science to run in the
direction of mysticism kabbalistic or otherwise. Science is what it is
because differences and differences between differences etc. are what
they are and are themselves definitively and demonstrably so in terms
of themselves.

On the other hand the cause and origin of differences in general can
never be known for the reasons indicated above. However that does not
suggest that differences can have been created either. It's the same
reason there can be no existential singularities in black holes or
anywhere else. Differences are eternal apparently because the
alternative in the absence of differences can't cause anything
knowable in terms of differences and anything not knowable in terms of
differences isn't knowable at all.


Lester,
You can't say that the cause and origin of differences in general
can never be known because you already admitted above that you "have
to conclude that all things are subject to differences...and thus are
in fact knowable". Either all means all or it doesn't, even if I left
out the qualifying "in this respect".

Pat, I think there is a misinterpretation here. I say P "differences"
is proven for everything because conceivable alternatives Q "different
from differences" is universally self contradictory. And in this sense
we do know differences. However the sense in which differences are
known is by universal exclusion from alternatives and the knowledge in
this sense is negative.

Which means we cannot know differences in relation to anything else
the way we know A in relation to C by means of differences. And this
means that differences have and can have had no cause in general
because there is no predicate of differences except itself. Can anyone
say prime mover unmoved?


Perhaps. If the prime mover is all there is, nothing can move
it.

All I'm saying is there may be
non-scientific ways of knowing, i.e., unprovable ways. Thus, the
ancients' phrase "to know in one's heart". I believe you may be right
about differences but I also believe it to be very difficult to prove
some areas of it, e.g., differences in general.

Well there are certainly many non scientific ways of gaining
information. The term knowledge technically in scientific terms
refers to demonstrated information or as I would say demonstrated
judgment.


Then one could use one of these other methods to yield
information and then scientifically sift through the information and
yield knowledge.

And there are two ways of looking at proof in this connection.
Alternatives to P "differences" are inherently self contradictory. So
I have proven that alternative methods of gaining information or
knowledge antithetical to or inconsistent with differences are
necessarily self contradictory.

On the other hand explaining alternatives consistent with differences
just means showing how various alternatives are mechanized in terms of
differences which is a different but ongoing process. I've managed to
assign specific meanings to things like consciousness, cognition, free
will, intuition, instinct, imagination, etc. that prove consistent
with the basic idea of differences and differences between differences
but not everyone agrees with my interpretations.

Yet you "feel" it's
right. So don't allow the science to run in the direction of
mysticism. Do like I do and let the mysticism run in the direction of
science; I feel it can and does quite easily.

This is actually quite a valid point. I stand corrected. Your
perspective is preferable.

It can make the
differences known as "revelation", "inspiration" and "intuition" work
for you. I'm not trying to get all religious here, I just think/feel
that science does have its boundaries and, until the scientific window
opens a bit more in these areas, we may have to use older
methodologies for learning some things. Remember, although we have
nuclear weapons, a rock cast from a sling can still kill even if it is
considered obsolete.

What I would like you to understand however is that there is a
definite distinction between the mystic and mysticism. Mysticism is a
doctrinal approach to issues of science and scientific discovery that
makes certain universal claims. I can and do acknowedge that discovery
of scientific knowledge is a desultory process that can only be
trained but can never be systematized. And to this extent we can
considered it to be mystic. But mysticism or cabalism or whatever form
of mysticism you prefer gives the misleading impression that its
doctrines represent a systematic approach to discovery and science in
general.

Which is not true. Science is the systematic approach to knowledge in
general. And as a systematic approach it is certainly systematizable.
However the discovery of knowledge scienitific and otherwise cannot
be. Discovery is a trainable but ultimately happenstantial process.


The kabbalah is very much a self-consistent system for defining
relational differences and forms a method of differentiation and
classification of information. In that regard it minds your Ps and Qs
in a D-ist kind of way. I have never once found that it contradicts
any scientific discovery. It just gets to the point in a different
way.

I disagree, on kabbalistic grounds, with your concept that the
absence of differences can't cause anything knowable. E.g., If the
only thing that is is "Not". Not applied to itself, i.e., "Not(not)",
will yield everything. This is a kabbalistic decoding of John 1:1.
"In the beginning was the Word. (the word being 'not') And the Word
was God. (in that it had the power to create) And the Word was with
God. (thus the recursive Not(not)) Again, I'm not(!) trying to wax
religiously, just pointing out a time-honoured method of codifying
just the sort of concepts you're playing with.

Actually Pat I frankly amazed at some of the advanced insights you're
achieving in this little essay. Going for your master's?


Do you mean, am I going for my Masters in Differential Cognition?
I'm not sure I can. I've only got a Diploma so far, not a full BSc.

Once convinced of the self consistently demonstrable power of
differences and differences between differences, I began applying the
principle to any area I could including the very one you mention
directly above and I reached exactly the same conclusion.

All roads still lead to Rome, it's just that Rome is a different
place these days.


But I have avoided pursuing the subject publicly because I am
preoccupied with establishing the principles P "differences" and S
"differences between differences" first. And while I don't mind being
considered a D-ist I don't want to be considered a deist or worse yet
a theist. And indeed I consider that the phrasing "In the beginning
was the word and the word was god" - rather than with god - may
actually reflect some ancient insight into the topic at least of
predication if not differences.

I suppose that makes me the E-ist with respect to my views regarding
the omnipotence of energy. The kabbalah outlines the process that
formed predication and differentiation in general (really!!), which is
why I say you should take a look. There is much information that
could stand to be scientifically thrashed about and, perhaps, yield a
bit of the missing "general" theory that you lack.

However notnot only yields an absence difference happenstantially and
when it does the absence of difference is never an identity except in
the one case of self contradiction A not A. This is why the very idea
of self contradiction is universally known to be useless just because
the uniform absence of difference cannot cause anything if we suppose
the presence of difference can and does. And we can and do.


In my mind, not(not) yields infinite potential, which could only
reach its potential given the energy to do so. Since we know energy
exists, energy must be that which was, is and will be. (Note: YHVH or
Jehovah is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" that is best translated
as "is was will be") It is energy in a constant state of flux,
referring reflexively only to itself (as there is no other) that
causes P. It is because this energy has the property of consciousness
that lends practical value to your S in that, without consciousness,
there is nothing to note the differences between differences or to
grow in consciousness by realising P or noting S. And it is growth of
consciousness that is, in my view, the goal of existence/the meaning
of life because of the way it forms a sort of something from nothing,
which would be extropic in effect (in the same fashion that certain
wholes are greater than the sum of their parts). I'll put that
forward as the E-ist view of the D-ist theory.
The presence of differences in our space-time could "appear" to
be non-existent, yet still be existent in other dimensions, which is
why I hold fast to other dimensions. It allows for the confusing bits
we see as actually being illusory. Maybe we're in the folded up bit
and the rest is reality.

PS Perhaps you could use the phrase "Ab differo ergo sum" to
summarise your concept. It could be translated as "I differ from
(others and) therefore I am (defined)". This, of course, could
pertain to the definition of anything and is quite universal in that
regard. I would have to add to that "quod vis commutatabilis est"
meaning " because energy is transformable".

No thanks, Pat. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with P "differences" and

On 5 Feb 2004 17:57:35 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4021699a.75397903@netnews.att.net>...
On 4 Feb 2004 05:25:51 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<40202e55.65880948@netnews.att.net>...
On 3 Feb 2004 11:32:18 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<401d2a3b.23784866@netnews.att.net>...
Four Laws of Ideation
---------

Four laws which describe the experimental properties of an
intellectual condensate are:

#1 Your idea is indecipherable - and if not

#2 Your idea is wrong - and if not

#3 Your idea is not original - and if not

#4 I thought of it first.

I'm probably somewhere between #1 and #3 with my idea of differences
as the universal cause for all things known and knowable and
differences between differences as the universal cause of sentience.
However with sufficient perseverance I'm sure I'll get to #4 soon
enough.

Regards - Lester


Lester,
If differences are the cause for all things known and knowable,
this still leaves the unknown and the unknowable as possibly being
caused by something else.

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

I won't be so cheeky as to ask you to give
me an example of something you don't know; however, what sort of
things can you think of that might fall into the category of
"unknowable"?

Things unknowable would certainly include anything not subject to
differences.

In practical terms I think this may well include the ether and would
also include differences themselves. In other words I doubt we could
say much about any spatial ether if there are no differences in it
except perhaps as reflected in Planck's constant. And I see no
possible way at all to explain differences in general terms because
they represent the means of explanation. Differences explain one
another in particular but there can be no explanation as to why
differences exist in general.

If there aren't any, then it just leaves the unknown as
possibly being caused by something else. But, of course, when we
define a member of that set, it automatically becomes known and
"becomes" caused by differences. Therefore, the unknown can be
eliminated from "what might be caused by something other than
differences". Still we have the unknowable!! Is it possible to
discuss the unknowable? Or do we end up sounding like H.P. Lovecraft
and his "From Beyond"? Is the unknowable that which science can not
delineate? Or is it simply things like "A can never know exactly what
B's dreams are like"? But B might be able to write the dream down and
share the experience. Then, B might be blind yet still dream in
colour. How would B know?

Well apart from differences in general things unknowable in principle
would have to be only those things which are for some reason we don't
understand not subject to differences as matter of principle. However
I'm inclined to suggest that any such thing would be circumscribable
in terms of differences by things which are knowable and thus would be
subject to differences to that extent.

So I have to conclude that all things are subject to differences in
this respect and thus are in fact knowable.

Also, that which caused things to be different might be
considered to be omnipotent. That is, whatever performed the first
differentiation or, indeed, differentiated itself into that which is
knowable through differentiation could well be deemed God from this
perspective. That perspective is VERY kabbalistic in origin. You
might do yourself a favour by taking a look at kabbalistic theory, in
that it serves as a basis for defining everything with respect to how
it formed from the differentiation of the unity that is God and how
that unity formed from nothing. It's something I've studied for about
25 years now and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface, as
there's 3500+ years of material at which to look.

Well it's always good to hear from you, Pat, because your
contributions are invariably well intended and occasionally amusing.
However I fear I would be amiss if I allowed science to run in the
direction of mysticism kabbalistic or otherwise. Science is what it is
because differences and differences between differences etc. are what
they are and are themselves definitively and demonstrably so in terms
of themselves.

On the other hand the cause and origin of differences in general can
never be known for the reasons indicated above. However that does not
suggest that differences can have been created either. It's the same
reason there can be no existential singularities in black holes or
anywhere else. Differences are eternal apparently because the
alternative in the absence of differences can't cause anything
knowable in terms of differences and anything not knowable in terms of
differences isn't knowable at all.


Lester,
You can't say that the cause and origin of differences in general
can never be known because you already admitted above that you "have
to conclude that all things are subject to differences...and thus are
in fact knowable". Either all means all or it doesn't, even if I left
out the qualifying "in this respect".

Pat, I think there is a misinterpretation here. I say P "differences"
is proven for everything because conceivable alternatives Q "different
from differences" is universally self contradictory. And in this sense
we do know differences. However the sense in which differences are
known is by universal exclusion from alternatives and the knowledge in
this sense is negative.

Which means we cannot know differences in relation to anything else
the way we know A in relation to C by means of differences. And this
means that differences have and can have had no cause in general
because there is no predicate of differences except itself. Can anyone
say prime mover unmoved?


Perhaps. If the prime mover is all there is, nothing can move
it.

All I'm saying is there may be
non-scientific ways of knowing, i.e., unprovable ways. Thus, the
ancients' phrase "to know in one's heart". I believe you may be right
about differences but I also believe it to be very difficult to prove
some areas of it, e.g., differences in general.

Well there are certainly many non scientific ways of gaining
information. The term knowledge technically in scientific terms
refers to demonstrated information or as I would say demonstrated
judgment.


Then one could use one of these other methods to yield
information and then scientifically sift through the information and
yield knowledge.

Yes, except there is no method to the madness. One can only train and
discipline the imagination to the subject under analysis. And if one
chooses to train ones imagination to mysticism then one studies the
mysticism and not the science.

And there are two ways of looking at proof in this connection.
Alternatives to P "differences" are inherently self contradictory. So
I have proven that alternative methods of gaining information or
knowledge antithetical to or inconsistent with differences are
necessarily self contradictory.

On the other hand explaining alternatives consistent with differences
just means showing how various alternatives are mechanized in terms of
differences which is a different but ongoing process. I've managed to
assign specific meanings to things like consciousness, cognition, free
will, intuition, instinct, imagination, etc. that prove consistent
with the basic idea of differences and differences between differences
but not everyone agrees with my interpretations.

Yet you "feel" it's
right. So don't allow the science to run in the direction of
mysticism. Do like I do and let the mysticism run in the direction of
science; I feel it can and does quite easily.

This is actually quite a valid point. I stand corrected. Your
perspective is preferable.

It can make the
differences known as "revelation", "inspiration" and "intuition" work
for you. I'm not trying to get all religious here, I just think/feel
that science does have its boundaries and, until the scientific window
opens a bit more in these areas, we may have to use older
methodologies for learning some things. Remember, although we have
nuclear weapons, a rock cast from a sling can still kill even if it is
considered obsolete.

What I would like you to understand however is that there is a
definite distinction between the mystic and mysticism. Mysticism is a
doctrinal approach to issues of science and scientific discovery that
makes certain universal claims. I can and do acknowedge that discovery
of scientific knowledge is a desultory process that can only be
trained but can never be systematized. And to this extent we can
considered it to be mystic. But mysticism or cabalism or whatever form
of mysticism you prefer gives the misleading impression that its
doctrines represent a systematic approach to discovery and science in
general.

Which is not true. Science is the systematic approach to knowledge in
general. And as a systematic approach it is certainly systematizable.
However the discovery of knowledge scienitific and otherwise cannot
be. Discovery is a trainable but ultimately happenstantial process.


The kabbalah is very much a self-consistent system for defining
relational differences and forms a method of differentiation and
classification of information. In that regard it minds your Ps and Qs
in a D-ist kind of way. I have never once found that it contradicts
any scientific discovery. It just gets to the point in a different
way.

It very likely never makes any scientific pronouncement either. No
philosophy that I know of does. That's why they're philosophies and
not science. I have no idea whether this or that form of mysticism
makes any kind of sense in terms of itself or not. They just don't
make sense in terms of reality and knowledge of reality in general.

I disagree, on kabbalistic grounds, with your concept that the
absence of differences can't cause anything knowable. E.g., If the
only thing that is is "Not". Not applied to itself, i.e., "Not(not)",
will yield everything. This is a kabbalistic decoding of John 1:1.
"In the beginning was the Word. (the word being 'not') And the Word
was God. (in that it had the power to create) And the Word was with
God. (thus the recursive Not(not)) Again, I'm not(!) trying to wax
religiously, just pointing out a time-honoured method of codifying
just the sort of concepts you're playing with.

Actually Pat I frankly amazed at some of the advanced insights you're
achieving in this little essay. Going for your master's?


Do you mean, am I going for my Masters in Differential Cognition?
I'm not sure I can. I've only got a Diploma so far, not a full BSc.

Once convinced of the self consistently demonstrable power of
differences and differences between differences, I began applying the
principle to any area I could including the very one you mention
directly above and I reached exactly the same conclusion.

All roads still lead to Rome, it's just that Rome is a different
place these days.


But I have avoided pursuing the subject publicly because I am
preoccupied with establishing the principles P "differences" and S
"differences between differences" first. And while I don't mind being
considered a D-ist I don't want to be considered a deist or worse yet
a theist. And indeed I consider that the phrasing "In the beginning
was the word and the word was god" - rather than with god - may
actually reflect some ancient insight into the topic at least of
predication if not differences.

I suppose that makes me the E-ist with respect to my views regarding
the omnipotence of energy. The kabbalah outlines the process that
formed predication and differentiation in general (really!!), which is
why I say you should take a look. There is much information that
could stand to be scientifically thrashed about and, perhaps, yield a
bit of the missing "general" theory that you lack.

I'm not lacking the general theory, Pat. I have that. What I don't
have are the specific theories applicable to relevant component
sciences.

See, unfortunately you seem to be doing exactly what mystics do in
trying to apply mystical disciplines to science when what you
suggested previously instead was bringing mysticism into science by
which I understood you to mean bringing scienitific enlightenment to
naively mystical views of reality.

If you're trying to introduce mystical concepts as science or as
alternatives to science and methodologies of science then you're
completely wrong. It's true I said that originative sources of
scientific discovery are inherently desultory in nature. But that
means scientific discovery is not systematic and that means it isn't
systematic for any system or discipline or any form of mysticism
either including kabbalah.

I also said that "in the beginning was the word and the word was god"
offers an interesting historical coincidence that may be indicative of
some insight into the nature and explanatory power of predication as
an idea. Unfortunately that's only speculation on my part reasonable
though it might seem. But whatever that actually meant to the author
of those words is lost to history and was probably never explicitly
understood even by the author at that time.

It's all too appealing to believe that some revelatory or apocalyptic
principle of reality in general was once known and subsequently lost
to history. But that's not true. There never has been until now any
systematic and comprehensive understanding even of science in
particular much less reality in general. There has only been a
disjoint tapestry of seminal insights littering the road to modern
scientific understanding. Of which we have even yet far too little.
But intellectual recidivism isn't the answer.

However notnot only yields an absence difference happenstantially and
when it does the absence of difference is never an identity except in
the one case of self contradiction A not A. This is why the very idea
of self contradiction is universally known to be useless just because
the uniform absence of difference cannot cause anything if we suppose
the presence of difference can and does. And we can and do.


In my mind, not(not) yields infinite potential, which could only
reach its potential given the energy to do so. Since we know energy
exists, energy must be that which was, is and will be. (Note: YHVH or
Jehovah is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" that is best translated
as "is was will be") It is energy in a constant state of flux,
referring reflexively only to itself (as there is no other) that
causes P. It is because this energy has the property of consciousness
that lends practical value to your S in that, without consciousness,
there is nothing to note the differences between differences or to
grow in consciousness by realising P or noting S. And it is growth of
consciousness that is, in my view, the goal of existence/the meaning
of life because of the way it forms a sort of something from nothing,
which would be extropic in effect (in the same fashion that certain
wholes are greater than the sum of their parts). I'll put that
forward as the E-ist view of the D-ist theory.
The presence of differences in our space-time could "appear" to
be non-existent, yet still be existent in other dimensions, which is
why I hold fast to other dimensions. It allows for the confusing bits
we see as actually being illusory. Maybe we're in the folded up bit
and the rest is reality.

Hell, Pat, I could make up an allegorical tapestry woven of mystical
hyperdimensional threads and call it science too. It's not. It never
has been and it never will be. Not whether done by the prophets of
antiquity nor philosophers nor string theorists nor cosmologists of
the present. This is called fabrication.

What I call science is analytically definitive in nature and stands
alone because it proves itself and not because I'm too busy
daydreaming to take a close look at what the principles say and
actually mean in mechanical terms.

PS Perhaps you could use the phrase "Ab differo ergo sum" to
summarise your concept. It could be translated as "I differ from
(others and) therefore I am (defined)". This, of course, could
pertain to the definition of anything and is quite universal in that
regard. I would have to add to that "quod vis commutatabilis est"
meaning " because energy is transformable".

No thanks, Pat. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with P "differences" and
S "differences between differences".

Regards - Lester

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4023948a.89903246@netnews.att.net>...
On 5 Feb 2004 17:57:35 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4021699a.75397903@netnews.att.net>...
On 4 Feb 2004 05:25:51 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<40202e55.65880948@netnews.att.net>...
On 3 Feb 2004 11:32:18 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<401d2a3b.23784866@netnews.att.net>...
Four Laws of Ideation
---------

Four laws which describe the experimental properties of an
intellectual condensate are:

#1 Your idea is indecipherable - and if not

#2 Your idea is wrong - and if not

#3 Your idea is not original - and if not

#4 I thought of it first.

I'm probably somewhere between #1 and #3 with my idea of differences
as the universal cause for all things known and knowable and
differences between differences as the universal cause of sentience.
However with sufficient perseverance I'm sure I'll get to #4 soon
enough.

Regards - Lester


Lester,
If differences are the cause for all things known and knowable,
this still leaves the unknown and the unknowable as possibly being
caused by something else.

Except that the unknown could be knowable. So I think we have to
restrict your concern to the unknowable.

I won't be so cheeky as to ask you to give
me an example of something you don't know; however, what sort of
things can you think of that might fall into the category of
"unknowable"?

Things unknowable would certainly include anything not subject to
differences.

In practical terms I think this may well include the ether and would
also include differences themselves. In other words I doubt we could
say much about any spatial ether if there are no differences in it
except perhaps as reflected in Planck's constant. And I see no
possible way at all to explain differences in general terms because
they represent the means of explanation. Differences explain one
another in particular but there can be no explanation as to why
differences exist in general.

If there aren't any, then it just leaves the unknown as
possibly being caused by something else. But, of course, when we
define a member of that set, it automatically becomes known and
"becomes" caused by differences. Therefore, the unknown can be
eliminated from "what might be caused by something other than
differences". Still we have the unknowable!! Is it possible to
discuss the unknowable? Or do we end up sounding like H.P. Lovecraft
and his "From Beyond"? Is the unknowable that which science can not
delineate? Or is it simply things like "A can never know exactly what
B's dreams are like"? But B might be able to write the dream down and
share the experience. Then, B might be blind yet still dream in
colour. How would B know?

Well apart from differences in general things unknowable in principle
would have to be only those things which are for some reason we don't
understand not subject to differences as matter of principle. However
I'm inclined to suggest that any such thing would be circumscribable
in terms of differences by things which are knowable and thus would be
subject to differences to that extent.

So I have to conclude that all things are subject to differences in
this respect and thus are in fact knowable.

Also, that which caused things to be different might be
considered to be omnipotent. That is, whatever performed the first
differentiation or, indeed, differentiated itself into that which is
knowable through differentiation could well be deemed God from this
perspective. That perspective is VERY kabbalistic in origin. You
might do yourself a favour by taking a look at kabbalistic theory, in
that it serves as a basis for defining everything with respect to how
it formed from the differentiation of the unity that is God and how
that unity formed from nothing. It's something I've studied for about
25 years now and I still feel like I'm only scratching the surface, as
there's 3500+ years of material at which to look.

Well it's always good to hear from you, Pat, because your
contributions are invariably well intended and occasionally amusing.
However I fear I would be amiss if I allowed science to run in the
direction of mysticism kabbalistic or otherwise. Science is what it is
because differences and differences between differences etc. are what
they are and are themselves definitively and demonstrably so in terms
of themselves.

On the other hand the cause and origin of differences in general can
never be known for the reasons indicated above. However that does not
suggest that differences can have been created either. It's the same
reason there can be no existential singularities in black holes or
anywhere else. Differences are eternal apparently because the
alternative in the absence of differences can't cause anything
knowable in terms of differences and anything not knowable in terms of
differences isn't knowable at all.


Lester,
You can't say that the cause and origin of differences in general
can never be known because you already admitted above that you "have
to conclude that all things are subject to differences...and thus are
in fact knowable". Either all means all or it doesn't, even if I left
out the qualifying "in this respect".

Pat, I think there is a misinterpretation here. I say P "differences"
is proven for everything because conceivable alternatives Q "different
from differences" is universally self contradictory. And in this sense
we do know differences. However the sense in which differences are
known is by universal exclusion from alternatives and the knowledge in
this sense is negative.

Which means we cannot know differences in relation to anything else
the way we know A in relation to C by means of differences. And this
means that differences have and can have had no cause in general
because there is no predicate of differences except itself. Can anyone
say prime mover unmoved?


Perhaps. If the prime mover is all there is, nothing can move
it.

All I'm saying is there may be
non-scientific ways of knowing, i.e., unprovable ways. Thus, the
ancients' phrase "to know in one's heart". I believe you may be right
about differences but I also believe it to be very difficult to prove
some areas of it, e.g., differences in general.

Well there are certainly many non scientific ways of gaining
information. The term knowledge technically in scientific terms
refers to demonstrated information or as I would say demonstrated
judgment.


Then one could use one of these other methods to yield
information and then scientifically sift through the information and
yield knowledge.

Yes, except there is no method to the madness. One can only train and
discipline the imagination to the subject under analysis. And if one
chooses to train ones imagination to mysticism then one studies the
mysticism and not the science.

Yes, I think it is a good idea to view a subject in its own
context but that does not mean you have to be blinded by it any more
than one has to be blinded by science.

And there are two ways of looking at proof in this connection.
Alternatives to P "differences" are inherently self contradictory. So
I have proven that alternative methods of gaining information or
knowledge antithetical to or inconsistent with differences are
necessarily self contradictory.

On the other hand explaining alternatives consistent with differences
just means showing how various alternatives are mechanized in terms of
differences which is a different but ongoing process. I've managed to
assign specific meanings to things like consciousness, cognition, free
will, intuition, instinct, imagination, etc. that prove consistent
with the basic idea of differences and differences between differences
but not everyone agrees with my interpretations.

Yet you "feel" it's
right. So don't allow the science to run in the direction of
mysticism. Do like I do and let the mysticism run in the direction of
science; I feel it can and does quite easily.

This is actually quite a valid point. I stand corrected. Your
perspective is preferable.

It can make the
differences known as "revelation", "inspiration" and "intuition" work
for you. I'm not trying to get all religious here, I just think/feel
that science does have its boundaries and, until the scientific window
opens a bit more in these areas, we may have to use older
methodologies for learning some things. Remember, although we have
nuclear weapons, a rock cast from a sling can still kill even if it is
considered obsolete.

What I would like you to understand however is that there is a
definite distinction between the mystic and mysticism. Mysticism is a
doctrinal approach to issues of science and scientific discovery that
makes certain universal claims. I can and do acknowedge that discovery
of scientific knowledge is a desultory process that can only be
trained but can never be systematized. And to this extent we can
considered it to be mystic. But mysticism or cabalism or whatever form
of mysticism you prefer gives the misleading impression that its
doctrines represent a systematic approach to discovery and science in
general.

Which is not true. Science is the systematic approach to knowledge in
general. And as a systematic approach it is certainly systematizable.
However the discovery of knowledge scienitific and otherwise cannot
be. Discovery is a trainable but ultimately happenstantial process.


The kabbalah is very much a self-consistent system for defining
relational differences and forms a method of differentiation and
classification of information. In that regard it minds your Ps and Qs
in a D-ist kind of way. I have never once found that it contradicts
any scientific discovery. It just gets to the point in a different
way.

It very likely never makes any scientific pronouncement either. No
philosophy that I know of does. That's why they're philosophies and
not science. I have no idea whether this or that form of mysticism
makes any kind of sense in terms of itself or not. They just don't
make sense in terms of reality and knowledge of reality in general.


If you don't know whether any form of mysticism makes sense in
terms of itself or in scientific terms it is because you have never
looked not because it could not possibly make sense in terms of
reality. You've judged the library without looking at one book, much
less one cover. It seems you're hiding behind the philosophy of
scientism here.

I disagree, on kabbalistic grounds, with your concept that the
absence of differences can't cause anything knowable. E.g., If the
only thing that is is "Not". Not applied to itself, i.e., "Not(not)",
will yield everything. This is a kabbalistic decoding of John 1:1.
"In the beginning was the Word. (the word being 'not') And the Word
was God. (in that it had the power to create) And the Word was with
God. (thus the recursive Not(not)) Again, I'm not(!) trying to wax
religiously, just pointing out a time-honoured method of codifying
just the sort of concepts you're playing with.

Actually Pat I frankly amazed at some of the advanced insights you're
achieving in this little essay. Going for your master's?


Do you mean, am I going for my Masters in Differential Cognition?
I'm not sure I can. I've only got a Diploma so far, not a full BSc.

Once convinced of the self consistently demonstrable power of
differences and differences between differences, I began applying the
principle to any area I could including the very one you mention
directly above and I reached exactly the same conclusion.

All roads still lead to Rome, it's just that Rome is a different
place these days.


But I have avoided pursuing the subject publicly because I am
preoccupied with establishing the principles P "differences" and S
"differences between differences" first. And while I don't mind being
considered a D-ist I don't want to be considered a deist or worse yet
a theist. And indeed I consider that the phrasing "In the beginning
was the word and the word was god" - rather than with god - may
actually reflect some ancient insight into the topic at least of
predication if not differences.

I suppose that makes me the E-ist with respect to my views regarding
the omnipotence of energy. The kabbalah outlines the process that
formed predication and differentiation in general (really!!), which is
why I say you should take a look. There is much information that
could stand to be scientifically thrashed about and, perhaps, yield a
bit of the missing "general" theory that you lack.

I'm not lacking the general theory, Pat. I have that. What I don't
have are the specific theories applicable to relevant component
sciences.


What I was referring to when I said you lacked the "theory in
general" was your line: "differences have and can have had no cause in
general because there is no predicate of differences except itself."
The cause is the why differences make all the difference. I fear this
"got up your wick" a bit from the tone of the rem