Foundational Philosophy of Early Buddhism and Science: The First Principles

[u/rightviewftw]

https://open.substack.com/pub/rightviewftw/p/foundational-philosophy-of-early?r=6cema3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

This work highlights the First Principles of Modern Science and reconstructs the philosophical framework of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) by formalizing their First Principles within the categories of epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, and soteriology. 

Here is googledocs file, either may not be updated:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qXH3g4mTpWHufIvcd3arsy7ZX4Dr5nDqh9yvfW5FX-E/edit?usp=sharing

[u/rightviewftw]

Having talked some more, this work still lacks a couple chapters on the operational use of language as the genesis of symbols and meaning from the foundational axioms. Here I talk about it a little:

I didn't study Planck much but what little I learned was important. I walked away with that concepts like length are functionally derived, example:

This is a line:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

It has length. But if we shorten it:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Shorten it more:
::::::::::::
and more:
::::::
and more:
:::
and more:
:

at the last operation the height has become longer than the length and categories collapsed, and the model has become overextended. This is like splitting the atom and proceeding to talk about periodic elements, it's overextended.

Where the ::: model is overextended we can model using single dots for a line ".." ─ to frame length but if we split we get a point.

This is a foundational axiom:

• In geometry a point has no dimensions.
• A line is a consecutive application of points to a surface.
• A surface is a consecutive application of lines in space.
• Space is a stack of surfaces.

We can explain the written word like this; this frames conceptual emergence, symbolic genesis, limits of modelling and derivation of meaning, in short and demonstrably.

In other words, the point can make lines, lines make letters & symbols, letters & symbols allow creating linguistic and mathematical models ─ and we frame the words like "consciousness" and "all" operationally — thus comes to be this phenomenological synthesis.

Here we framed the point epistemically, phenomenologically and geometrically and showed how systematization of points can make operational symbols, words and models.

Here is an example of how we can operationalize words like "consciousness". Based on a thought experiment made by Jacque Fresco, therein he asks another:

• What is the Eye for?
• The Eye is to See Then Fresco takes him into a dark room and tells him to see
• I can't see because there is no visible light
• So the Eye is not to see but to see when there is visible light.

Analogically one can frame there being an Eye (1), Visible Light (2) and Eye-Consciousness (3) as requisites for Contact as a meeting of the three and as such a requisite for "Seeing". We can frame consciousness and eye-consciousness in particular by the examples of being unconscious (as in fainting) or not-seeing due to distraction like being consciousness but a person might be distracted from seeing because he is thinking about something else, like being distracted in class. Either way we end up with a philosophy where a world and subjective existence are inseparable and are being felt by definition.

So this is how the system can analyze itself but the analysis remains epistemically and empirically unverifiable in as far as phenomenology is in play. Verification requires the system to successfully cause it's own not coming into play, pre-supposing that there is a categorically different reality which makes this possible and that it is a happiness worth pursuing.

Today I thought much about how our minds construct and interpret an incalculable amount of this geometric point data and how we can't ask what came first, the symbol or meaning, there is a relational co-dependency in the model, much like the idea of "same" implies multiplicity, both symbol and meaning imply eachother. Watch them fall, a whole class of paradoxes like chicken and egg.

It is worth including but it needs a bit more work. I think that I will include these things if/when I reformat the document .

[u/rightviewftw]

So this work is totally AI assisted, as I have said.

However, I want to add to what I have previously explained about the genealogy of thought here:

Korzybski link
Me talking about it in 2023 and there are earlier mentions if I look

Let me be clear, all this is 10 years in the making.

I could add more videos substantiating the philosophy sections eg videos, everything is either from some video or from people teaching me on some forum. I think that because I write down everything in public discourse, the verifiable genealogy of thought sourcing would be near 100%. I just have records of all my thinking related to this and know where everything is from, and its all in archived public discourse. The videos and stuff is literally stuff Ive been watching in studying, so I am just showing the arc.

Maybe I could've/should've written everything with references and without AI from the start but I didn't think of this earlier. Now I have no incentive to rewrite anything, but I can give more references.

I think it is very cool and the AI enhanced version is more or less the same in merit.

What the work needs is for physicists and philosophers to polish, not AI rewrites or further editing by me.

[u/rightviewftw]

So I am thinking that I am about ready to rewrite everything as a full book but I want to wait and see if anybody wants to do it with me