The COSMOS CONNECTION Philosopher
By: Theresa J Morris
We share our direct connections to source through our channels connected to another place in space some regard as their doppelganger. For now the Spiritual Science and New Science of the New Age also known as the Golden Age of Cosmology is upon us in 2015.
The idea here is not to resolve these issues, but rather to clarify them for discussion and address commonly-held misconceptions regarding them.
We no longer subscribe to the knowledge that the known cosmos stops at the edge of this known universe which we have mapped with NASA.
The inside description of a context that is relative in size/structure (attributes/modes) to the known universe that we inhabit.
A Universe, also known as a Cosmos, is a particular individual space-time organization with a specified number of dimensions of space and time and definite and specific laws of physics.
Other Universes (other Cosmoses) may have different numbers of dimensions of space and time and different laws of physics than our own Universe (Cosmos).
Universe: A cosmos. From our solar system to the edge of the unknown, history and science collide on The Universe.The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Wikipedia
Multiverse: The part of infinity that directly joins a given universe with all possible configurations of that universe.
Metaverse: In string theory, the part that is along with, after; over also denoting change in the multiverse that houses the branes or film that each universe is said to be attached to and hang like individual sheets in a hypermagnetic wave with rhythms of hypercosmicstrings going up and down that has a third element
causing up, down, backwards, forwards, motions inside the Xenoverse.
Note: In computer science, a metaverse is a virtual reality simulation based on the physical reality of a single individual universe, but one or more levels of implementation above it. It is conceived that it will be possible in forthcoming centuries to create such simulations using massive arrays of matrioshka brains and Jupiter brains.
Xenoverse: the unknown alien elements that are beyond and part of the metaverse and multiverse structure. Compared to a patchwork quilt hanging on a line to dry in space that is multivariate inside the Omniverse. While Omniverse is said to be the outside ring of all that is known, the xenoverse is the inside the hypermacrocosm that is unknown beyond the metaverse-the unknown sets of laws that govern how branes behave to create metaverses, the laws of which govern the creation of multiverses.
Omniverse: All possible attributes and modes are in play, multiverses are categorized by the attributes/modes active in its child universes. Some or all possible modes of existence are actualized.
If we take the point of origin as our being as a point in measurement, then we can generate the following hierarchy:7 Levels of Cosmos accepted at the time on earth of the 21 century date 12-21-12.
We have new science sharing that of the ancient texts referring to the 7 levels of heaven, 7 colors of rainbow, 7 chakras, and we have the spiritual science theory in ACE Folklife History that is being reconfigured based on ancient archaeology and xenoarchaeology that if we begin with the 7 levels in the COSMOS we can someday find out what is beyond these levels. We subscribe to 13 dimension which at this time have no official accepted name in mainstream metaphysics or in philosophy.
- Point of Origin (our location in space-time), 2. this universe, 3. the multiverse, 4. the metaverse, 5. the xenoverse, 6. the omniverse. 6. the alphaverse, 7. the omegaverse.
- Philosophy can be broadly grouped into several major areas:
- Epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief.
- Logic, the study of what follows from what.
- Metaphysics, the study of the basic nature of existence and reality.
- Value Theory, which includes ethics/moral philosophy, political philosophy, aesthetics, and similar areas.
- Philosophy of Science and Mathematics, including Philosophy of Mind.
Philosophy in this narrower sense is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject any and all positions to criticism.
As with most disciplines, “philosophy” has both a casual and a technical usage.
In its casual use, “philosophy” may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and subsume topics such as religion, mysticism, and even science.
When someone asks you what “your philosophy” is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they’re asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.
In its technical use — the use relevant here at /r/philosophy — it is a more specific study.
Even in its narrower sense, philosophy can be difficult to demarcate.
Nevertheless, the following generalizations are useful as rules-of-thumb.
A position is not philosophical if:
- It does not address or reduce to one of the studies shown in the previous section.
- It may be more productively addressed through some other discipline (e.g., science).
- No attempt is made to argue for a position’s conclusions or it is forbidden to subject the position to criticism.
Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical, but do not meet this definition (and should not be posted about in /r/philosophy):
- Mysticism. (“I meditated today and experienced the oneness of the universe…”)
- Drug experiences. (“I dropped acid today and experienced the oneness of the universe…”)
- Self-help. (“How can I be a happier person and have more people like me?”)
- Trite sayings, quotes, or other clichés presented as fact. (“We are the universe experiencing itself.”)
Philosophical questions often have no direct bearing on the sorts of things people care about. Philosophy doesn’t produce technology or feelings of comfort and self-actualization. This can lead many to think that philosophy is not important or engaged with questions that don’t really matter.
Philosophy tends to be about the most fundamental issues.
For instance, you may ask, “Why is the sky blue?” For this you would naturally be directed to a physicist for an answer. You might further ask, “How can the physicist know her theories really tell us anything about reality?”
For this, you need a philosopher. Philosophy deals with the fundamental questions that ground all disciplines — and indeed, all human knowledge-seeking endeavors.
Another common question is whether philosophy is actually capable of accomplishing this task.
There are many questions and problems that philosophers try to solve, and some of those problems are very old; the fact that a question remains open after thousands of years may lead some to think that it isn’t solvable.
This does not mean philosophy does not progress. While there may in many cases be no final, universally-agreed-upon answers, there will be better answers than those of a thousand years ago and a more thorough and rigorous understanding of the problems themselves.
In this sense philosophy is like science: it is a continuing process of trial and error, and to retire from this process is to retire from searching for the truth. We still have no final, conclusive understanding, but we have better theories than we did before — as long as we continue to subject our theories to criticism, if we try hard, and if we are lucky, we may in time better approximate the truth.
Academic philosophy is often hard to understand because, like any other advanced academic discipline, philosophy and specific subsections of philosophy have developed complex languages for discussing the more complex problems.
Resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and /r/askphilosophy can often help clarify these discussions, but just as understanding an advanced discussion of geology requires a deep background in the earth sciences, some detailed discussion of philosophical problems will be hard to follow without background in the discipline.
The least controversial way to mark the distinction is to say that Analytical philosophy tends to follow in the footsteps one way or another of Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and G.E. Moore, while Continental philosophy draws guidance from Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Martin Heidegger.
In part because the two traditions are responding to philosophers that dealt with different problems, they tend to ask different questions. There are good arguments that this difference is overstated; especially in recent decades, many “Analytic” philosophers have taken to examining crucial Continental figures such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, and other figures–such as Hegel and Brentano–have long been considered important by members of the Analytic tradition.
Most philosophers would still argue that the difference in interest is significant, and might be expressed very roughly as the difference between the Analytic who asks “What do we know, and how does it work?” and the Continental who asks “What do we know, and how does it change the world?”
Finally, because of the two differences marked above, philosophers in the two traditions tend to write in different styles. Analytic philosophers often want to be as close to a science as they can be, whereas Continental philosophers often see other topics or modes of analysis–such as history, literature, or philology–as being better at revealing the subjects that they are interested in.
As would be expected, all of these descriptions are overly broad. There have been dozens of important and influential philosophers in both traditions, some of whom likely share more with philosophers of the other tradition than they do with their contemporaries. For this reason, it is generally more useful to examine and refer to particular philosophers, philosophical ideas, or “movements” in philosophy.
This article is primarily dedicated to discussion of philosophy in the Western tradition. This is not because Eastern philosophy is considered lesser or invalid, but because it often encompasses an entirely different set of ideas and methodologies than Western philosophy.
That is not to say that the problems in Eastern philosophy do not at times intersect with problems in Western philosophy. Out Education Research Associates (Era) exist for many of the major areas of Eastern thought: for example, /r/Buddhism,/r/Taoism, /r/zen, and /r/Eastern Philosophy for a more general picture. /r/philosophy welcomes posts from all philosophical traditions, so long as they meet our rules and guidelines.
While these questions are often advertised as the work of philosophy in magazines or course descriptions, the truth is that almost no one working in philosophy today asks questions this vague.
Questions about the meaning of life are primarily restricted to religious debates these days, as it is very difficult to motivate the view that life could somehow have a meaning without a being to create that meaning. Questions about how we should live have become much more refined in contemporary ethics.
Instead of asking how we should live, philosophers ask questions like, “Are there moral reasons that can compel a person to action?”, “What is the source of morality?”, “What are the principles guiding moral action?” And so on.
Most philosophers who discuss the subject answer yes. The difference comes in what their answers are to “How do we know anything?” This question remains one of the more important ones in contemporary epistemology.
We suggest your own research to find your own Reading List for some suggested contemporary and historical discussions of the question.
How one answers it depends on how one answers questions such as “What is knowledge?” and “What does it mean to say that a belief is true?”, which are also extremely important and contested questions in contemporary epistemology.
Thus, no answer to the question “How do we know anything?” can be completely representative or uncontroversial.
Nevertheless, an example is worthwhile, and Wittgenstein’s extremely influential argument in On Certainty is–if not typical–generally considered to be powerful.
Wittgenstein takes up GE Moore’s famous “here is one hand” argument against skepticism and asks what would be required for us to doubt a statement such as “I have a hand” or “The world has existed for more than 5 minutes.”
Wittgenstein’s point is not that such statements are obvious but that doubting them would be incomprehensible: that if I were to doubt that I had a hand, belief and doubt themselves would be rendered empty and meaningless.
An answer is–of course–infused with other arguments of Wittgenstein’s.
Like some of the other issues on this list, free will is a heavily debated subject in contemporary philosophy.
According to the PhilPapers Survey nearly 75% of philosophers lean towards accepting some type of free will.
Most of those almost 60% are compatibilists, or philosophers who believe that free will is compatible with causal determinism and/or naturalism.
The categories of libertarian, we have free will and are not causally determined and incompatibilist no free will are causally determined, each clock in at less than 15%.
Part of the debate surrounding free will is exactly what it means.
Most compatibilists accept the point that the important notions of free will do not require the ability to have chosen differently, and instead insist that free will requires that one’s actions be caused by internal conditions instead of external ones.
It’s difficult to say what is meant by “subjective” when talking about ethics. On the one hand, we might think that what is good for a person depends on that person; that there is no hard and fast way to live the good life. In this view, we might think that what is good for me say playing soccer cannot be compared to what is good for my neighbor, who is perhaps a fan of baseball.
There is no way to argue against each others preferences in this sense of subjectivity, but we might still agree that neither of us has the right to attack another’s preferences.
For example, we might think that it would be wrong for me to slash her tires the evening before a big baseball game in order to prevent her from going. There is an appeal to real moral principles about how we should act, but what’s valuable for each of us is subjectively determined.
On the other hand, we might think that what makes a moral claim true depends upon the beliefs of the agent. This is a little closer to what is commonly known as cultural or moral relativism. Although it’s important to note that this view alone doesn’t entail that you can “do whatever you want,” or other common conceptions of moral relativism. This only suggests that moral facts are relative to the context, not that there are no moral facts.
In any case, the discussion about these views in ethics as well as many others continues in philosophy today. There is no strong consensus about the nature of morality, although a majority of working philosophers about 56% do think that some form of moral realism, the view that there are facts about what one ought to do, is true.
This is one of the hottest debates in contemporary philosophy, so the most appropriate answer might simply be “Who knows?”
A more full-bodied answer might point out that these questions do not quite get at the heart of the argument, which is rather centered around questions such as:
“Is it possible for minds to be purely physical?”
“Will science someday be able to describe consciousness completely using only current scientific terminology?”
The difference between these two types of questions is indicative, both of the particular debate and of the questions contemporary analytic philosophy tries to answer in general.
The first set of questions ask about what is though not necessarily in natural manner and are therefore not necessarily the type of questions best answered by philosophy.
The latter questions, however, ask what is possible, necessary, conceivable, and meta-questions such as “What evidence would be necessary to show x?” These latter questions are at least prima facie more up the alley of the philosopher.
Science and philosophy were once a unified field asking questions about the nature of reality and humanity’s relationship to it. In Ancient Greece philosophers practiced moral philosophy and natural science alike.
Aristotle, for example, was among the very first biologists. During the Enlightenment physics, chemistry, and their cousins were all called “natural philosophy” and famous scientists such as Galileo and Newton were natural philosophers.
These days the fields are considerably more distinct, although contemporary work in cognitive science and of interest both to working scientists and philosophers of the mind.
Religion often finds foundations in philosophy. Many scholastic philosophers had the belief that “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology”; that is, in order to understand theology, you must understand philosophy.
This is present in many religions; some examples are that men studying to be Catholic priests must have an undergraduate degree in philosophy in order to attend theological seminary, and that Buddhism is arguable as equally a philosophy as a religion. Major philosophers from all time periods, such as Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, and Platinga, all express belief in a deity.