/lit/ - Literature

>>11867681
>I'm also sympathetic with this...
Yes, I mostly agree with your assessment. I do wonder though to what extent some philosophical positions have been 'memed' into cultural consciousness by intellectuals. In this way, more abstract ideas could become quite accessible and influential -- even taken for granted as true. Still, I expect that evolving material circumstances are the primary driver and that complex reasoning is usually tacked on ex post facto.

I think such paradoxes can also be resolved by supposing that spatiotemporality exists, that our intuition of it is incomplete and subsequently that our concepts are often inadequate to describe 'what is'. If we posit that the universe is spatially infinite -- quite possibly because spacetime is perpetually generated in a non-intuitive fashion -- then why must it be constrained by a limited notion of totality? It seems the notion of totality applied is likely an artifact of limited perception... Why can't a spatiotemporally infinite universe have variable totality? If totality must be defined as a static and enclosed (by what?) wholeness, then I submit that we have arbitrarily hobbled the concept. The same thing happens in the instance of the finite universe: Why must finite space be bounded, can we not simply look at it as a limited quantity? Are we not contradictorily assuming that 'nothing' is an actual thing -- an actual alternative state to 'something'? Why would a finite universe necessarily have a boundary, could it not curve back upon itself while remaining finite in quantity?

>>11867689
Even with memories of orderly relations, one experiences disorientation in response to a lack of external reference points. Our intuition of orderly relations can produce things like optical illusions which are contrary to knowledge. I agree that experience is crucial to recognition, and also in shaping the nature of a consciousness... Which leads me back again to not seeing the hard line between form and content, sensor and sensed.