🎯 Relevance (Vertical Causation)
🎯 Relevance (Philosophical Interview)
🎯 Relevance (The End Of Quantum)
You will continue to the next chapter here https://seremonia.medium.com/metaphilosophy-singular-reasoning-non-partial-contextual-conversion-3683a40c4043
Is an effort to understand more deeply or broadly behind the initial meaning of something.
Although universal absolutes are not popular among philosophers, and even those who initiated it seem to be ignored (almost forgotten), it is ultimately known as "Vertical Causation" by Wolfgang Smith (many academic philosophers in discussions with me do not recognize this concept, even though Wolfgang Smith is a Western philosopher whose promotion should be extensive, but he is also neglected and his concept is largely unknown).
✅ He calls it "vertical causation", but I call it "contextual conversion" as the foundation of Singular Reasoning (META Reasoning).
There are three main aspects of reasoning with contextual conversion, namely:
- 1⃣ Breaking information into several modules of meaning +
- 2⃣ Seeking empirical evidence for each meaning (word) +
- 3⃣ Finding the universal meaning similarities of each word in point 2.
Many try by seeking word similarities. If someone hears the word "smell," it means "bad odor," whereas "smell" is not always "bad odor," as there is "fragrant smell."
Or hierarchically, where "someone" is associated with "father," whereas that "someone" is better known as a "philanthropist." This is where the function of concurrentia causalis (simultaneity of cause and effect) comes into play to find the relevance between one meaning and another but has a strong consistency relationship, so when one or a number of meanings of a sentence are discussed or debated, it is not easy to get caught in ambiguity or overlapping meanings, but rather broadens the perspective. Thus, what initially starts as a debate will gradually converge towards a universal understanding.
So indeed, it is not as easy as finding word similarities or as easy as finding the hierarchy. But the perspective is more in-depth. THIS IS WHERE THE HELP OF GOD IS NEEDED, THROUGH PRAYER.
Criticism of Philosophy
There are those who question the usefulness of philosophy, seeing it as nothing more than debate that leaves unresolved polemical issues, with no majority consensus like that found among scientists and mathematicians.
- 〰 What Happened To Philosophy❓
https://philosophynow.org/issues/158/What_Happened_to_Philosophy - 〰 What can philosophers do to become relevant to the public again❓
https://dailynous.com/2023/10/26/philosophy-science-and-religion/
👉 Link META https://t.me/METAFilsafat/1/119040 - 〰 Question on Quora: What are some criticisms of philosophy❓
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-philosophy?ch=15&oid=23019006&share=0ac0a7b0&srid=ni2m&target_type=question
Is it due to the unease among philosophers about this issue that Wolfgang Smith’s concept is being listened to? I don't know, but after a long time of seeming neglect (as if those who usually vigorously promote Western philosophers have become allergic to the absolute truth advocated by Wolfgang Smith or simply do not believe in it), his concept is starting to be heard, and not only is it not against something new, but there is hope of finding a solution to philosophical thought that brings improvement. That’s why the meta concept introduced by Wolfgang Smith in philosophy is not only being listened to but also being intensively interviewed and made into a film.
⭕️ The concept that there is something more fundamental than cause and effect itself feels strange.
This is a brief overview of the META concept in revealing universal absolute truth, which is gradually starting to be recognized globally. Although progress may be slow (or fast?), as long as there are philosophical discussions around the world and I am involved in them, I see that Wolfgang Smith's "Vertical Causation" concept is not well known.
- Some are concerned about the development of philosophy, considering it to have no independence unless it relies on science https://www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/#/david-pearce/
👉 Link Meta https://t.me/METAFilsafat/1/119042
This has specifically led to interviews about the current state of philosophy according to some opinions What Is It Like To Be A Philosopher❓
Philosophy is not grounded. Some consider philosophy to be ungrounded, impractical
- https://www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/#/kathleen-higgins/
👉 Link META https://t.me/METAFilsafat/1/119041
However, I see that there is still enthusiasm among philosophers to advance philosophy, and the problem does not lie in the weakness of philosophy itself, but in the practitioners among philosophers who must be able to adapt to the times without losing their independence.
- https://www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/beritbogaard?rq=brit%20brogaard
👉 Link META https://t.me/METAFilsafat/1/119044
Criticism of METAPhilosophy
Initially just a concept meant to accompany philosophy to synergize with it.
Yes, it is just a concept considered overly grandiose and unrealistic, merely promising clarity that has yet to materialize.
A meta effort that does not help philosophy to complement each other except for broad suggestions that are still unclear in direction.
Until the time comes for philosopher Wolfgang Smith who initiated the idea of a truly different way of philosophizing from what is generally known until now.
Vertical Causation
The concept of singular reasoning, though not popular among philosophers, was introduced in a limited way (only its broad outlines) by philosopher Wolfgang Smith. Due to his orientation towards absolute truth, his ideas were either ignored or not recognized, despite him being a Western philosopher. Consequently, his concepts, including "vertical causation," are not well known due to insufficient promotion.
Typically, Western philosophers are better known because of more aggressive promotion, but Smith's concept did not gain traction smoothly within academic philosophy.
It wasn't until about 3-4 years ago that his ideas began to gain recognition, notably through the film "The End of Quantum." This recognition did not result from aggressive promotion but possibly from the growing dissatisfaction among philosophers with the lack of progress in modern philosophy compared to its classical predecessors. Modern philosophy seems to be merely reiterating the wisdom of ancient philosophers and stagnating with inherited philosophical polemics.
Contextual Conversion: A Technical Overview
Let's begin by examining how to perform contextual conversion technically, with an initial example:
- 📌 "I walk in the morning"
You can break the above sentence into different parts (modules) as follows:
- 🧩 I walk + in the morning
- 🧩 I + walk + in the morning
- 🧩 I + walk + in + the morning
- 🧩 I + walk + in the + morning
- 🧩 I + walk + in + the + morning
The more parts we can divide the sentence into, the deeper (more complete) the contextual conversion will be.
Realistic Connections
Each meaning of "I", "walk", "in", "the", "morning" must be connected to reality:
- "I" 👉 connected to yourself, a friend, or someone else
- "walk" 👉 connected to the act of moving your feet towards a destination
- "in" 👉 connected to a specific location
- "morning" 👉 connected to a specific time or atmosphere that characterizes "morning"
Concurrentia Causalis - Beyond Synonyms
Next, we find synonyms for "I", "walk", "in", "the", "morning" that are not just synonyms but exhibit concurrentia causalis (simultaneity of relationship, which I call "cc" — simultaneity of connection).
"CC" FROM "I":
- 〰 "I" has a "cc" with "effect" because there is simultaneity between "I" and "effect" in the sense that whenever there is "I", there is an "effect". It can’t be said "after there is I, then the effect comes later". The existence of "I" and "effect" is simultaneous. When we realize late that "I" is the "effect", it does not mean they are not simultaneous but rather a delay in our perception. However, in reality, it is realized that "I" and "effect" are one.
Another example of "cc" ...
- 〰 Lamp "cc" is "light"
👉 If there is a lamp, there is light (even if it is not always on, the function of providing light exists in the lamp). - 〰 Book "cc" is "reading"
👉 If there is a book, there is reading (even if it is not always read, the function of reading exists in the book). - 〰 Table "cc" is "place"
👉 If there is a table, there is a place (even if it is not always used as a support, the function of providing a place exists in the table).
Perspective
The perspective should also be noted, not to invalidate the simultaneity but rather to help refine it further.
For example, the "cc" of "WATER" can be linked to "life", as water also has the function of giving life. However, the "cc" of "WATER" can also be linked to "flood". Does this mean that every time there is "water" there is always a "flood"? Not necessarily. However, by knowing its "cc", we can delve deeper into the "cc" of "flood", which is "puddle", making it clear that the deeper "cc" of "water" is "puddle". We can further search for the "cc" of "puddle", which is "wet", thus the "cc" of "water" is "wet".
We continue to trace the "cc" (concurrentia causalis - simultaneity) of a meaning until we realize that its "cc" is truly simultaneous with the original meaning.
Interconnectedness
If different meanings have different "cc", but form an action-reaction with a different final result, then the final result needs to be found for its "cc".
Example: sugar water = "water" + "sugar"
- 〰 The "cc" of "water" might be "wet" and the "cc" of "sugar" is "sweet". Then the "cc" of "wet" + "sweet" = "thick". Thus, we need to find the "cc" of "thick" to become the "cc" not of each "water" and "sugar" but the combined "cc" of "water" + "sugar".
Once the "cc" of each meaning is known, we will know...
- 1⃣ Which part of the meaning connects with other meanings and what happens if they are separated.
- 2⃣ We will also be able to see a new understanding based on the "cc" of the initial understanding.
👉 In simple terms, we can uncover deeper insights behind simple statements.
