RE: Foundational Axioms of Truth: Existence and Consciousness
Existence exists.
It exists as a concept. Not as we and objects exist. To believe that it literally exists as a Form of some sort is Platonic Idealism. It's not clear whether that's what you're implying.
I thought, as I was reading, you would go for the rules of logic as primary. But you went for existence and consciousness instead. That's fine I guess, but keep in mind that you're using a kind of logic in order to convince us about the primacy of existence and consciousness, so it's like a loop. I'd at least add the rules of logic to the group, if not supplant it. And I guess you did that later with the Law of Identity.
Also, maybe objects/existence come first, consciousness second, but when we start thinking, we begin from consciousness. The objects could, for all I know, not exist. I could be dreaming them, I could be a brain in a vat, lots of things. So I think in a way, on the 'certainty' level, consciousness comes first. "I think therefore I am" is the first thing I can be sure of, Descartes said, and then he built from there (an edifice that didn't stand, tbh). But realistically, if what we see around us is real, existence comes first, objects being the substrate that holds up consciousness.
Also, etymology is interesting, and I always enjoy it, and sometimes it's spot on about certain facts - but in itself it's not an argument. Humans made those words, and they could be wrong in the associations they implied when they crafted them.
Your posts are always interesting. But you post so many a day it's inevitable I'll miss 90% of them. Can I convince you to post just one a day, so I can keep up? No? Well it was worth a shot!
I've done other posts on how things can exist in themselves as primary substances, or in others conditional properties, as well as the particular or universal level. There are grouping order constructs that are used to convey the universals, like color does't exist as a thing itself, but green is a spectrum of light that does. Yet color exists as a universal grouping order construct to reference an understanding about what exists: colors. Existence, reality, truth and universe can apply that way as well. They are grouping order constructs that reference an understanding about reality. Many things exist, yet don't exist as a thing itself. I can't keep repeating the same things about every point in all my posts, it would just be too long ;) As you say, there are many posts lol.
Language is imbued with meaning reflected from reality, and root words convey those original reflections that can bring greater clarity and light to understand a words meaning. Deeper connections about how words were created help us understand why some words have the same roots. Thanks for the feedback ;)
I get the idea you're talking about submodalities, ala NLP.
I know of NLP, but not the term submodalities. This is philosophical metaphysics. Aristotle spoke about it long ago :)
Submodalities are the "dimensions" if you will of sensory perception. They're the individual qualities that we can perceive within a sense. For example, some of the visual submodalities are: color, motion, location, focus, etc.
These are in turn a part of what NLP calls our representational system, which represents ideas and knowledge.
Any correlation?
Yeah, similar, but for example focus is based on the perceiver, while color is there regardless of someone perceiving, motion too, etc. Color, motion, location, are accidental properties. They exist in the categories of being as possible to exist in substances, but don't exist in themselves.
In other words, the perceiver must have color vision in order to see color? :)
Well that's true... but what I'm saying is that focus is not a quality in the thing your looking at. Color, motion, location are qualities of the other things, and of perception like you say. I was just making the distinction about how some things are similar, but one is a model of perceiving what exists, while the other is about what exists, what is perceived.
Ergo, as stated, focus is a quality of the object.
Getting past the language above, what's the point of the distinction you're making? How is it useful?