Thomas An. wrote:
You seem to be immersed in a volume of modernistic philosophical lint (an abstraction layer in itself). The interesting thing is that in order to detect, evaluate/process, and point out the transcendental you need to operate within Transendental as well. Also, the thinking process of "hmm, I cannot see a direct empirical/utilitarian context in this particular hypothesis / argument. Therefore it must be transcendental" involves subjectivity; which is erratic.
Quite the contrary, as philosophy's medium is the *concept*, which is agrammatical, and qualitatively different from the medium of science, which operates through propositional functions and logic. The concept, being non-representational/agrammatical, thus may or may not invoke transcendentals (and the same case for propositional logic), it depends on a series of complex factors. Thus with philosophy & science we have two quite distinct modes of human production, each succeptable of falling victim to the absolute, each capable of liberating itself from the absolute, and history is full of both such cases, and both often participating in a mobile and dynamic 'assemblage' within the human consciousness itself (again considered as a multiplicity, a grouping of heterogeneous forces in a entity which cannot be reduced to the one).
As concerns the logical construction of your assertion that I am (necessarily?) invoking the transcendental in order to point out your use of the transcendental, it seems a bit cloudy to me - I don't see the logical construction of this argument. I don't need to perform a transcendental operation, just detect it (a code invoking an absolute as its referent (infinity) and condemn it
as a logical operation that negates matter itself for its own purposes . From an empirical standpoint i don't verify anything *resembling* infinity, rather i see heterogeneous multiplicities (matter, movement, duration, creation). I'm not invoking an absolute as a means of critique, I'm just saying keep the abstractions as close to matter as possible, and be careful with the concept of truth, as truth is always related to power. (theology, the nation state, etc...)
And I'm not condemning *anything* that is not utilitarian as being transcendental, there are obviously endless human productions non 'utilitarian' (or course we'd have to invoke a definition of utilitarian here) which do not make claims to the absolute. (art, literature...). So your assertions are a bit foggy to me, but I'd immagine we could hold another lengthy discussion defining the human 'subject,' as my guess is that your definition would be primarily Cartesian in nature. We'll hold off on that one...
Thomas An. wrote:
However, the process of induction manifests itself in very practical matters of daily observation of a biological system. For example, biological unit N (parent human) produces offspring N+1 (child), N+1 is observed to produce offspring N+2 ... by repeatable confirmation units K,L,M (humans, simians, canine, etc)... Z also produce offsprings K+1, L+1, M+1 ... etc therefore unit N must have been itself the offspring of a unit N-1.
At this point the concept of infinity already arises from the observation of the existing system. It is not as much an abstraction as a mere inductive extrapolation from existing data.
If you're refering to 'inductive logic' (defined as the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it, including the formulation of laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns), i could only state that while it may have certain uses as a proposition function (probability statistics), as a *conceptual* proposition, its hard to come accross anything more transcendental or opposed to matter itself.
Two (wikipedia) examples concerning inductive logic:
1st example (statistical syllogism) :
A proportion Q of population P has attribute A.
An individual I is a member of P.
therefore
There is a probability which corresponds to Q that I has A.
As an inductive logic (and this is an extremely simple example), no transcendental operation is invoked, the function may be considered empirical (& abstracted).
2nd example (introductory example) :
This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold.
There is no ice in the Sun.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Anything struck with a cue moves.
Now, this example is paramount, as we see, when inductive logic is applied to *semiotic* system (codes which serve as signs *representing* matter) all sorts of transcendental problems arise, and the absolute is continually evoked.
When used as a function on a semiotic system (meaning /representation), it functions more or less as a "transcendental" machine, creating all kinds of representational and semiotic havoc.
Going back to the original problem, from this vantage point i could say that inductive logic may be very useful when applied to the birth of species for example, as this can be empirically observed and verified over time,
but when employed in an economy of the creation of a conscience (not empirically observable in matter (i doubt you or anyone else for that matter has witnessed or measured such a thing)), we run into all kinds or problems, not the least of which you're proposing an inductive method founded on observation which is set to task on something unobservable, semiotic in nature, and grounded on a Cartesian concept (itself transcendental).
Thomas An. wrote:
Furthermore, based on your interpretation, mathematics and science *do* fall in the realm of transcendental ... but you seem to classify them as "utilitarian exceptions" to avoid the inconvenience of dealing with a possible inconsistency in the definition. However, a model of thought that involves convenient exceptions like this, is arguably a non streamlined one. As such it involves higher entropy (the push for unified theories, such as the string theory and the like, involve the favorable desire of evolving low entropy thought models).
Notice the use of the mathematical notation in the above example. You would argue that it invokes the transcendental, but without specifying what is the boundary of "utilitarian exceptions". The presupposition being that the conscience Aitraaz ... possesses attributes of superiority that enable it to perform decisive evaluative distinctions of this nature.
Also notice, in the above biological series, that the backwards expansion is considered of higher probability than the forward expansion. In other words it is more likely for a unit N to have a great grand father than for it to have a future great grand child.
As such the inductive process (in its applied form) already takes into consideration probability qualifiers. Conversely, the transcendental-detection process you exhibited involves a 0-1 binary state of poor/good as a function of an observer's subjective assessment of what is to be enveloped as utilitarian.
I'm not avoiding any inconveniences, I'm arguing in favor of shifting mathematics and science closer to matter, and further from the absolute, closer to the functions themselves.
Consider the development of science through the ages - in a sense, it can be seen as a movement away from its theological origins (moral thought) towards a greater force of the propositional functions themselves. Galileo to Descartes to Leibniz to Spinoza to Plank...from moral theological (transcendental thought) to propositonal logic.
And once again, there's no binary process involved in 'detecting' a transcendental, quite the contrary, as abstraction by definition is binary, as it must negate *difference* in matter according to its own utilitarian needs.
matter = pure difference (empirically observable in matter)
abstracted code = pure repetition (any code in its essence relies on repetition in order for it to exist, or be repeated or transmitted).
The absraction layer is thus obtained through an act of negation
(negation of difference), a simple binary operation. And this negation comes about through a will (to utility), which incidentally is precisely the definition of abstraction. Matter does not negate - man does, for purely utilitarian reasons.
Anyways, as you point out, we're running on different stratums, so cheers & thanks for the learning & dialectics 
)
- By Andreas Hopf