dfindley

?? Why ? Thanks for the card <3

**DAOIST metaphysics , not 'racist' (stupid phone)

Oh my god barscenegambler I've been dying for you to address this, and the first expression you make is a need for belonging On second thought maybe Nietzsche avatars is an appropriate avatar for you (if you catch my drift) Notice the a priori principles are centered around theory of dialectic? It's originally inspired by racist metaphysics, ie the yi jing, specifically a certain diagram drawn by an yi jing theorist shao yong. And then of course I am learning kant and utilize some of his language to develop my conclusions. So you can say it is a synthesis of original daoist metaphysics (before they were corrupted by the five elements) and kant/German idealism. Like? No? I actually have to take a vacation from philosophy while I digest the reality that I am a genius O_O I buckle under the pressure of expectation. I feel sorry for Einstein, realizing how he felt after his initial breakthroughs. I will have to throw my genius away to flippant eccentricity if I expect to survive it at all...

Look, Marxist thought is bullshit because it assumes atheism and pure materialism as a foundational premise. My work in metaphysics of being and nothingness brings a swift end to that -- but not so much for the paradox of being and nothingness, but for the explication of nothingness as I give it. Materialism is run asunder. It must be held in an equal contrast to a spiritualized nothingness. The end consequence is not an end of history with a communist emphasis on economic equality, but rather one with an emphasis on the role of higher education (explicitly nurturing consciousness unto higher understanding, ie being.) My metaphysics are superior.

You share his suckage with him

Ps you know who sucks is the lame who is even bothered enough by zizek to feel motivated enough to say ziZek sucks. You fell in his trap you both suck O_O

Look guess what the transcendental antecedent is? Nothingness ....! And it is a matter of logical paradox that much a movement can be understood. It will soon be the deathbed of pure atheism. Even I am at odds with the paradox of being and nothingness. Adds a little existential wonder to life..

I think 'all of it' is a pretty damn good answer, philophilosopher. Why are you so overconcerned with what other people might think? Damn them. You do it for yourself, no? Did you know the chair of the Phil department at MIT reports his primary interest as 'metaphysica of color'? Do you know how utterly dumb that is? Might as well discuss the metaphysics of sweet and sour. --but he does it anyways-- . I am so proud

pfft word limits are for dolts I sent the same two-page SOP ignoring that non-sense

ONTOLOGY OF THE ELEMENTS; A TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC DAVID FINDLEY 1772 SHANGRILA, KAPOLEI, HI; 96707 IMDAVIDFINDLEY@GMAIL.COM Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2014 Awards for Essays on Gravitation Abstract; I present a series of a priori principles to illustrate the ontological development of a system, qualify Space and Time transcendentally as SpaceTime, and conclude by illustrating that certain phenomenal elements in nature may bear strictly transcendental relations to each other, based solely on their ontology. As such, the nature of these relations would only be subject to rationale a priori, in contradistinction the common empirical method. These transcendental relations I term ‘Ontological’, and premise that gravity may prove just such a relation. A Priori Principles in Metaphysics; A) A singularity whole and complete in itself cannot serve as catalyst to change without external influence. In order for change to occur, there must be at least one primary, self-contrasting dichotomy that can unfold in terms of dialectical procession. C) The self-contrasting quality of such a primordial dualism, in dialectical interpolation, is simultaneously a complementary relativity. D) As the primary duality proceeds into dialectic, the structure of the system it perpetuates reflects its binary nature. Hence, duality is recognized as a primary principle governing the nature of the system. E) Such a primary duality serves as the ontological foundation for all series of change that proceed from it. Every stage of its dialectical procession exists within the context of the primary duality. F) Elements manifesting from the intercourse of the primary duality must all ultimately be ontologically derivative primarily from one aspect of the duality, and secondarily from the other; otherwise there must be neutrality. G) Ontological derivation simultaneously implies limited relativity; elements manifesting in the manifold will prove relative to eachother in respect to the system in which they exist and the ontology by which they are derived. Qualifying the Transcendental; 1) Space and Time, insofar they are natural elements that are not subject to the empirical method, (their reality merely implied by the phenomenal,) are transcendental. Immaterial, they may be best described as the horizon through which the phenomenal may earn expression. 2) There are two possibilities hereby implied: either Space and Time are or are derivative of two distinct transcendental entities; or they are both derivative as modalities from the same transcendental antecedent. 3) In respect the theory of General Relativity, Space and Time are relative and simplified in their unification as SpaceTime. Accepting the possibility that Space and Time are ontological modalities derivative of same transcendental antecedent, we simultaneously explain the nature of their relativity and justify their unification in terms ‘SpaceTime’. 4) In respect mathematical and geometric conceptualization of SpaceTime, it is a four-dimensional entity. In respect the transcendental ontology of SpaceTime, it is a modal dualism. Towards a Natural Philosophy 1) The universe may be regarded as a system. The development of the universe as a system must be derived by at least a single dualism, which we may characterize as primary. 2) It may be premised that the modal dualism of Space and Time, as they arise from their ontological antecedent, is the primary duality from which the universe, as a system, is derived. 3) If the universe, as a system, is ontologically derivative of SpaceTime, it is simultaneously implied that the interpolation of this modal duality is the precursor to change and causality, (dialectic.) 4) The binary development of the interpolation of Space and Time in dialectic would quickly unfold into Chaos. 5) The manifold consequent SpaceTime dialectic would be subject to the a priori principles outlined above. We may therefore infer that certain elements within the system may bear relations to eachother based solely on their ontology. 6) Such ‘Ontological Relativity’, though its effects empirically verifiable, would in itself prove transcendental – and consequently only subject to discovery a priori. Conclusion; The presentation of explicit principles a priori in regards the development of a system gives rise to a premise for ‘Ontological Relativity’, and suggests that certain phenomena may bear relations that, like Space and Time, are strictly transcendental in nature. This being given, it would only be via reason a priori that their natures be determined. Gravity may prove just such an example in this case. Just sent this out to most of my grad school committees (chairs and grad advisors.) Probably they'll read it.

Thanks. I have a work colleague writing a second, and a dude writing third. Thanks everyone.

Ok ok I must have read it and not realized; 'The unity of apperception I call the transcendental unity of self-consciousness.' Wow... I don't think he is being explicit enough ... maybe he'll talk more about it later...

Well I think he called it a representation ... but then the synthetic unity behind the 'I think' (in apperception) is is indiscernible from the self, (ie they are the same. Right??) ! I didn't know kant said that kind of stuff. I want a refund from the university of Memphis for my modern philosophy class

Aaah two months with commentaries and lectures? So I don't feel so bad ) thanks. I'm reading it bit by bit , too. I am definitely checking out the lectures. Behind Socrates and descartes?? No way. I am thinking he is number one. Schelling would be number two... Ps so is the ego transcendental?? Maybe I'll encounter that address further in.

Personal convictions?

??? Does anybody know their kant?? I swear he just implied that the ego was transcendental. I thought that was fichte. ...I can't believe I never read kant...

Did you ever read the critique of pure reason? How long did it take you to read? (Or, how long did you take to read it?) It's hard. And there are concepts I didn't realize kant himself developed. (Ie SS12 of the originally synthetical unity of apperception, which is ...dasein?? ...I thought that was the genius in heidegger but apparently ... it was kant. I can't believe how good it is...

Maybe it implies a superior education.

...what experience? Do you think my book will make me competitive with a 3,4 gpa? -and that one strong (I assume) letter of recommendation would be enough? I mean, any professor worth his beans should recognize the significance in my work. But.. I know my recommending professor said that quantitative scores establish rankings that are typical standards of admissions. ...I'm just thinking that my writing sample Is so awesome as mine demands exceptions be made in that regard. The standards are as they are because work of such high quality as my own must be so incredibly rare as to be virtually unheard of o_O

Nah I'm heartbroken. I just wrote that because I thought it sounded more respectable at the time

....

I'm looking forward to moving to Thailand, getting a nice little house, young pretty wife, and doing my study on my own.

Everything except my original treatise in metaphysics.

Haha Well, the only way you'll get .to study the material you want is to so it yourself. You would most likely be disappointed with a US school. Studying abroad is hard. Especially at state schools. You can insist that it is what you want, but I don't think you would be happy for it in the end. We do often have the option to do private reading and research courses directed or supervised by a professor. These credits count toward your degree, help you to build relationships with professors, and give you the freedom to read and study what you want. I took several of these -- and they made my college education worth it. I am sure Israeli universities offer the same thing. In the end, it doesn't matter where you study, as long as you can do it well and do it for yourself. It would be earning your phd that would mean the moat to you. THAT is when coming to America would be really advantageous to you. I am sincere when I say that earning your .BA in the US -- unless it were ivy league -- most likely wouldn't be worth it.

Hi satyr, I hope you find what you're looking for in philosophy. Unless you are rich or otherwise wealthy enough to attend an ivy league school (or win full scholarships) that Israel is a fine enough place to study. Don't think about getting your bachelors -- think about earning your phd ! Get decent grades and make it a goal to publish 1-2 times in a journal of philosophy before you graduate. It wouldn't be worth it to study at a state university in the US. Too many distractions from your main goal, anyways. Goodluck !!