PDA

View Full Version : Ontology.


Gem
22-03-2011, 06:04 AM
The mind is a thing that pertains to thought, but the thought itself isn't what is experienced, the experience is a manifestation, ie a consequence.

Any form, be it a physical thing or an imagined conjuring, is 'manifest'. To abreviate it as a fundamental: Form is Manifest.

To deal with the thought itself is go prior to the formal manifestation... as we look to the 'cause' of manifestation, but there is no imaginary way of that, for the imagination is already manifest. We look to the 'cause' of such imagery.

Firstly there is observation, without which no experience would be possible, so the thought which is observed is a formless 'thing' devoid of any property... we just call it an 'ontological object' and assert 'it exists'.

The only reason we assume the thought exists is because of the manifested experience, but we never need to doubt 'existence' as it is fundamentally 'not nothing'.

Thats the basis of ontology, we have observation of the ontological object.

Gem
23-03-2011, 02:23 AM
We just say a thing exists (but it has no properties or qualities) so the thought itself is observable in a sense, but is not experienced mentally as there is no form, and although the ontological object is conceived it can't be imagined, so in this way the thought exists prior to any apparition. The apparition occurs after the thought itself... it's like an echo.

Metaphorically speaking, when one strikes a bell, the bell doesn't make any sound, but the consequence of striking it vibrates the surrounding air which vibrates the ear and then sound is heard. The experience of sound is consequential to the strike.

Gem
23-03-2011, 11:15 AM
The main thing is we conceive the ontological object but we can't imagine it, so the thought is before the stuff that occurs to the mind.

Interestingly the OO (ontological object) isn't invented, it just happens to be, it has the strictest rules to define what it is, but there is no definition for it, except it doesn't have one.

It is because we assert it is, so it is a thought, but we can't experience that thought, we only experience 'the thought about it' or 'the echo' as I like to call it.

That indicates that there is no immediate experience, and experience is actually a trail of memorized thought, but the OO is 'before you can think' ... it's just there permanantly, but it can't be remembered, because it has no substance, observed yes... here I am talking about the OO. 'about' the OO.

Gem
24-03-2011, 12:36 PM
All about the OO, but there is no OO to be seen, of course it is observed since I talk about it, and it is a thought because I conceived it, but I can't imagine it nor see it, because formal things are not ontological.