On drawing distinctions

[Reciprocality]

One of the bigger topics in Leo Guras teachings has been the drawing of distinctions.

So how do we do it? 

Phenomenologically speaking all things are distinct either in appearance or in position, but this is not really the kind of distinction humans gravitate towards.

It is not essential for the attribute of a good leader that he is positioned here and not there, or that he appears this or that way, and it is this relationship between attributes and the attributed that I imply by whatever is excluded from the domain that whatever were denoted by "phenomenologically speaking" is partial of.

How can we have clarity in our mind of the concept of a good leader if the concept can not be given to us through the inessential properties of position and appearance?  How do we have clarity of any concept if nothing particular instantiates it, and how do we even have that concept in the first place? And if something particular instantiates our concept isn't the relationship between that particular thing and our concept merely conjunctive as opposed to true?

And lastly, if indeed the concept is a true property of the particular and concrete thing, that is, if the distinctions we have drawn are more than fantastical, how do we know?

[caspex]

Indeed when we learn of any distinction in any concept we base these distinctions on concepts and ideas already established and that the relationship between these assumed concepts/instances and the concept in questions is merely conjunctive and not necessarily true. But, that is what the process of learning is all about. You find these assumptions and distinguish ever deeper until you are satisfied or tired. Distinctions initially occur from observations, and then they are remembered. These observations are relied upon to be true and there practicality tested and therefore considered more than simply fantastical, however it is also true that practicality doesn't necessarily indicate truthfulness.

In my personal contemplation I have understood that all distinctions are simply fantastical and made up, because we can dissolve any distinction between any two attributes no matter how true they may seem. I can look at a pencil and also a cup, and dissolve the distinction between them to the point I see them as the same object. You can argue this is only a mental exercise and doesn't reflect reality, but that's only a distinction you just made.

I see all distinctions as imaginary, however what distinctions you make, where you make them and how many of them you make, determines a system of distinctions through which you view your world; and certain configurations are more effective at navigating reality, both practically and spiritually, than others. This is why the act of creating distinctions remains ever important in the quest to survive and in the quest to understand.

These configurations which are more effective, better and more efficient, that align with larger systems in reality at play, are what, in my contemplation, indicate a 'clearer' understanding of something.

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, caspex said:

Indeed when we learn of any distinction in any concept we base these distinctions on concepts and ideas already established and that the relationship between these assumed concepts/instances and the concept in questions is merely conjunctive and not necessarily true. But, that is what the process of learning is all about. You find these assumptions and distinguish ever deeper until you are satisfied or tired. Distinctions initially occur from observations, and then they are remembered. These observations are relied upon to be true and there practicality tested and therefore considered more than simply fantastical, however it is also true that practicality doesn't necessarily indicate truthfulness.

In my personal contemplation I have understood that all distinctions are simply fantastical and made up, because we can dissolve any distinction between any two attributes no matter how true they may seem. I can look at a pencil and also a cup, and dissolve the distinction between them to the point I see them as the same object. You can argue this is only a mental exercise and doesn't reflect reality, but that's only a distinction you just made.

I see all distinctions as imaginary, however what distinctions you make, where you make them and how many of them you make, determines a system of distinctions through which you view your world; and certain configurations are more effective at navigating reality, both practically and spiritually, than others. This is why the act of creating distinctions remains ever important in the quest to survive and in the quest to understand.

These configurations which are more effective, better and more efficient, that align with larger systems in reality at play, are what, in my contemplation, indicate a 'clearer' understanding of something.

nice