first meeting MIND draft

Mind  and Time
MIND  standpoint: EGO SUM QUI SUM
First Chapter of Speculum mentis I: Self & MIND
KNOWLEDGE  Perspectives
Second Chapter of Speculum mentis II: THE MAP KNOWLEDGE
ORIENTATION  Frame of reference
Third Chapter 0f Speculum mentis III: GNOSIS
PROJECTION & VISION Future of Humanity
Fourth Chapter of Speculum mentis IV: TIME & MIND
Ve alleme âdemelesmâe küllehâ
Quran, Bakara/31
“God has conceded two sights to a man-
One of man’s whole work, time’s completed plan,
The other of the minute’s work, man’s first
Step to the plan’s completeness.”
from Browning’s Sordello
“in culpa est animus qui se non effugit unquam”
that mind is at fault which never escapes itself

True wisdom is less presuming than folly.
The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind;
the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not;
he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
. “What is necessarily determined in Space,
is contingent, in Time.”
A Turkish Mystic
Speculum mentis/ GUIDEMAP of “Ego sum qui sum”

8 All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing. cunctae res difficiles non potest eas homo explicare sermone non saturatur oculus visu nec auris impletur auditu

In order to expound my ‘speculum mentis’, the mirror of my mind, I will initiate by drawing a guiding map of the mind and the knowledge.
per speculum videmus in aenigmate;
et ex parte cognoscimus,
 et ex parte prophetamus.”
MIND  my standpoint: EGO SUM QUI SUM
First Chapter of Speculum mentis I: Self & MIND

  1. Identity, Self-awareness, Self & Mind

 Story of Moses as a metaphore of  identity problem and self-identiy
In order to expound my ‘speculum mentis’, what I see in the mirror of my mind,  I will draw your attention to a very strange and famous story, the life of Moses, as it was told in the book of Genesis. Because it seemed to me, as if, this story included the most illustrative metaphore which could be interpereted in such a way that would be a rich source for a critical discussion of consciousnes; there is a rich, resourceful cultural heritage about this story which illuminates the self-identity problem  and the real identiy of absolute selfhood…
Once, I was writing an article about “Man, Existence and Time”; and I was willing to stress the problem of ever changing body of human self, comparing it with the changeless self-identity of God. And naturally, I had chosen the famous phrase “ego sum qui sum” as the opening sentence of that article. And though I was not sure then, I felt that this phrase is spoken from such an altitude and has such a high magnitude and quality that it could be uttered only by God, and probably on Mount Sinai. And then, although I repeatedly looked at the Torah to find this phrase I had failed to locate it, so then I stated it reluctantly as “It is said that, God said to Moses: ‘I AM WHO AM’ at the Mount Sinai.”
. Here is the details of the story as it was told in Old Testament, Exodus 3:14:

1 Now Moses fed the sheep of Jethro, his father in law, the priest of Madian: and he drove the flock to the inner parts of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, Horeb. 
2 And the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he saw that the bush was on fire, and was not burnt. 
3 And Moses said: I will go, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 
4 And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush. and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am. 
5 And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet; for the place, whereon thou standest, is holy ground. 
6 And he said: I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Moses hid his face: for he durst not look at God. 
7 And the Lord said to him: I have seen the affliction of my people in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of the rigour of them that are over the works; 
8 And knowing their sorrow, I am come down to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians, and to bring them out of that land into a good and spacious land, into a land that floweth with milk and honey, to the places of the Chanaanite, and Hethite, and Amorrhite, and Pherezite, and Hevite, and Jebusite. 
9 For the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have seen their affliction, wherewith they are oppressed by the Egyptians. 
10 But come, and I will send thee to Pharao, that thou mayst bring forth my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt. 
11 And Moses said to God: Who am I that I should go to Pharao, and should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? 
12 And he said to him: I will be with thee; and this thou shalt have for a sign that I have sent thee: When thou shalt have brought my people out of Egypt, thou shalt offer sacrifice to God upon this mountain. 
13 Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they shall say to me: What is his name? What shall I say to them? 
14 dixit Deus ad Mosen EGO SUM QUI SUM ait sic dices filiis Israhel qui est misit me ad vosGod said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. 
15 And God said again to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord God of your fathers the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me to you; this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 

“Ego sum qui sum”, (“ʼèhyè ʼăšèr ʼèhyè, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה” in hebrew and translated into arabic
as أَهْيَهِ الَّذِي أَهْيَه ) ) translated as “I am who I am”, “I am what I am” or “I am what I will be”. Thus defined self-identity of God with this semantically self-referential name. This is an act of true “Naming” of the selfhood of God by Jahve himself. Name means identity, since we have to name something to identify it’s individual existence which differs from everything else. Aforementioned “naming” phrase is true by definition being an auto-logical and tautological statement (simply because of saying the same thing twice) “I am who I am”. From the semantical viewpoint, again, “Naming something” is an important act which is considered as a magical act which empowers you to control the thing implied by the name. “Naming” enables us to describe and distinguish the “identity” of an individualized entity. Here is the first naming of Yahve which could be interpreted almost as “who he is” (ya huve\ yâ hû: which turkish people use too much in daily language ) in arabic. “Ego sum qui sum” reminds me the famous dictum of Hallac: “Ene’l-Hak”: (I am truth, I exist absolutely forever without change). Again, when Caliph Ali hears the dictum that “Once there was God and nothing else besides him”, he replies that; “el-ân kemâ kâne”: “now is the same as before”. That is, nothing changed in this present time too, there is no real existence except God.
The word Ehyeh [1] literally means “I will be”. This is a name given by God to identify himself in the Burning Bush, the importance of this phrase stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism that God exists by himself for himself, and is the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity; therefore “I am who I am” (ongoing, permanent).
Moreover it is semantically a self-referential identity which refers to its own existence as an absolute self which in turn indicates that instead of pronouncing a name it refers to an absolute, changeless self. That is, it implies an absolute self who can last forever without recurring any change in his self-identity. It implies that only God has this kind of absolute ego; a self-identity which can last forever permanently without any change whatsoever. Then only God can truly say “ego sum qui sum”: I will be what I will be, since only his identity can remain eternally. İt is not going to die or change in time. This is why, in our culture, customarily every gravestone has this inscription on it which states: “Huve’l-Baki”: He(God) is permanent forever. Self-identity of God – will remain eternally as the same identity if we recall what he says in Hebrew: “I will be what I will be”: The same meaning is expressed in Quran as:
هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ:
“He is the first and the last and he is the seen (open secret) of the observable existence and he is the hidden (immanent) truth of existence and he knows everything.”
This is not only a remarkable act of naming which is pronounced self-referentially by God himself; being so, this name should be the most definitive, and changeless identity of God; “Ego Sum Qui Sum” (I am what I am, I am who I am, I will be what I will be, I am the real self-identity) but also implies an unchanging self, an absolute existence everlasting without any change. This is why that phrase, “ego sum qui sum”, has often been interpreted with many philosophical, theological and mystical implications.
I have started to think with this example in mind, then I thought this phrase could be interpreted in such a way that this kind of self-reference to the existence and identity of any entity could be used to make an auto-logical description. Not only for the true identity and existence of selfhood but also physical existence of nature. Here lies the real essence of the self-ness; it is known by itself, it is what it is; intuitively felt but not observable by any physical means. Selfhood comes first and felt before everything else; it is known by self-awareness, by itself; then the self-identity, in this sense, should include not only Mind and Body of an individuality, but also some other Personality attributes if they continue in time without change (e.g. though the parts of body changes in time, it goes on with the same DNA).
But according to some contemporary physicalists, the mind and the brain of a person is identical; selfhood might only be a construction of the Mind and there is nothing which transcends one’s brain, neither real selfhood nor soul.
I think there is a semantical confusion here. Selfhood (nephesh in Hebrew, nephes in Arabic) means Ego, self-identity of the mind, but it also means a living (breathing) creature. Nefs means soul in Arabic, Aristotle means the same thing when he says “de anime”. These denotations of this semantical concepts could also be useful to investigate; but most of the problems related with mind and consciousness appears to come into existence because of the paradigm shifts in the modern mentality, rather than semantical confusions of the conceptions. Semantical concepts or paradigms which we use as tools of thinking may change the particular solutions and outcomes in accordance with their functionalities. This is why I began with recalling this story of Moses. Again,there is another interesting story of identity in the Old Testament: According to the narration, in the beginning, Moses did not even know his personal identity; he was brought up as an Egyptian Prince, the son of the Pharaoh’s sister, but later learned that he was a Jew in fact.
I assume that, before the beginning of a quest for meaning, one must initiate to analyse the content of his own Mind and Soul, that is, the real nature of his self-identity. I have chosen this narration about the naming of God’s identity because it is an illuminative example to introduce the semantical meaning of selfhood. I have to choose a proper standpoint to view this terra incognita, since it will determine my perspective. Perspective means both the content and understanding of a mind and the perspective of a Mind is also determined by its chosen standpoint. This is why we should pay attention to our standpoint before beginning to explore the unknown territory. Thus, from my viewpoint this self-referential description of Ego (I, me-ness in latin)  as “ego sum qui sum”: is a good beginning which illustrates the unmeasurable difficulties of the self-conception beginning instantly from the tautological definition of the word (ego) itself.  From this point of view I have come to this conclusion that I should primarily try to comprehend the nature of self-identity, so I have to investigate the subject using as many diverse perspectives of different disciplines as possible. At first we should be aware of semantical difficulties of naming and identifying the subjects of our thought abstraction levels of its conceptions. I feel there are logical and mathematical aspects of it too. To be sure a Philosophical analysis needs the information coming from scientific investigations. It is known that at present scientific knowledge and perspective cannot fully explain human consciousness, especially, qualia self-awareness, attention and self-reference as ego let alone will.
Needless to say History of the subject and a conspective view of philosophy of history would be illuminating and I think this subject needs to be reconsidered from the perspectives of art, theology and mystical experience also.
I am going to reiterate that, I have began with this sacred name of God because I wanted to begin with the concept of Ego as my standpoint. This story is beautifully illustrates the importance of the chosen standpoint for a suitable perspective. Let us recall here again, according to this narration, how Moses sees the light and wishes to know what happens over there on the bush, what is the identity behind that event. That means a perspective should be framed beginning from this standpoint: id est “EGO”.  Because knowledge also begins with the self-awareness of the mind which denotes to a “self” (ego) behind that mind. But can a person analyse its own Mind? We have to remember here that Descartes also begins to construct his philosophy with the famous motto, “cogito; ergo, sum”: I think therefore I am. It is usually translated as “I think; therefore, I exist”. I had once rephrased this dictum, in the context of an article which I wrote many years ago, that it should be understood as “I am aware of myself; therefore, I exist” (eş’uru izen ene mevcudün), because, here, the thinking mind (cogito) is self-aware and already grammatically referring to its own “ego” as “I” think… Ego sum, ego existo. I learned later on that Descartes himself also had already made this inference (in Meditation II):   “… hoc pronuntiatum: ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum.” “… this proposition: I am, I exist, whenever it is uttered from me, or conceived by the mind, necessarily is true.” This statement sometimes given as “dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum”. He says “ it is certain that I /that is, my mind, by which I am what I am/, is entirely and truely distinct from my body, and may exist without it.” Discourse on method…What is this “res cogitans” (a thinking thing)? I think this might be the hardest question of knowledge both for science and philosophical analysis. I remember a dictum here by St Augustin: Si fallor, sum (“If I am mistaken, I am”). Naturally, Scientific and Philosophical elucidations of knowledge requires semantical, logical and mathematical analyses, but the problem of consciousness and selfhood comes first and demands artistical, historical, theological analyses including an analyses of intuitive and instinctive konowledge because of the nature of mystical experience and meditations. What is this self-consciousness? Every self-aware consciousness naturally ensures itself that it is aware of its own self-identity and conceives that its self-identity differs from everything else which is perceived by deciphering the impulses coming via the sensory organs. In short, my consciousness, self-awareness of my own Mind, makes me believe that “ego sum qui sum”: I am who I am, therefore I am conscious of my self-identity and my body; thus, I am different from whatever I perceive with my sensory organs which come from my surroundings. I also am aware that they are definitely different from my self-identity which conceives them. We are absolutely sure of this fact when we are consciously aware of ourselves, but how can anyone be sure that he is not in a dream-state or have some delusions like hallucinations. There is a hard question: Why neural activity of brain accompanied by an internal subjective experience? Why do we have some subjective feelings of pain which is called qualia? And here comes the hardest question of consciousness, why do we have this internal subjective experience as awareness, attention and self-reference as the experiencing self of this consciousness? Whatever felt or happens in our conscious state we experience it subjectively as I experience it; it is happening to a “me”
It also is my self-awareness which ensures me that “I am”, “my self-identity”, truly exists and seems an uncompromising reality which I am not able to deny: ego sum, ego existo, since I am decisively conscious of my self-identity and whatever my consciousness conceives as long as I am aware of myself. This seems to me an undeniable fact because here the conceiver and the conceived become the same thing  since the mind refers to itself as the content of its consciousness. One cannot deny his self-awareness of the content of his own conscious. As a result I cannot doubt my self-consciousness and what it conceives. I can simply state that “I am”, “I exist”, but is it true? If so, what does it mean to be exist as a  self-aware ego? At this point I have recalled a thought experiment by Avicenna Thought experiment
While he was imprisoned in the castle of Fardajan near Hamadhan, Avicenna wrote his famous “Floating Man” -literally falling man- thought experiment to demonstrate human self-awarenessand the substantiality and immateriality of the soul. Avicenna believed his “Floating Man” thought experiment demonstrated that the soul is a substance, and claimed humans cannot doubt their own consciousness, even in a situation that prevents all sensory data input. The thought experiment told its readers to imagine themselves created all at once while suspended in the air, isolated from all sensations, which includes no sensory contact with even their own bodies. He argued that, in this scenario, one would still have self-consciousness. Because it is conceivable that a person, suspended in air while cut off from sense experience, would still be capable of determining his own existence, the thought experiment points to the conclusions that the soul is a perfection, independent of the body, and an immaterial substance. The conceivability of this “Floating Man” indicates that the soul is perceived intellectually, which entails the soul’s separateness from the body. Avicenna referred to the living human intelligence, particularly the active intellect, which he believed to be the hypostasis by which God communicates truth to the human mind and imparts order and intelligibility to nature. Following is an English translation of the argument:
One of us has to consider (yatawaham) that one has been just created in a stroke, and that one has been thus created fully developed and perfectly complete (kāmilan), yet [created] with one’s vision shrouded [or veiled] (hujiba baṣarahu) from watching [perceiving] (mushāhadāt) external entities created falling [floating] (yahwa) in the air on in empty space (al-khalāʾ) in a fall not buffeted by any felt air that buffets it [i.e. the Person in question]; its limbs separated and not in contact nor touching on another. Then let it contemplate (yataʾamal) whether it would affirm the existence of its own self. It would not then doubt the affirmation that its self is existent (mawjūda), yet not affirming the existence of any other limbs nor inner bowels, nor heart, nor brain, nor anything of the external things. Rather it was affirming the existence of its-self without affirming that it had length, breadth, or depth. And if it were possible for it, in such a state, to imagine (yatakhayal) a hand or any other limb, it would not then imagine it to be part of its-self nor to be condition of it [i.e. its-self existence]. And you know that what is affirmed is distinct from what is not affirmed, and what is implied is distinct from what is not implied. Therefore the nafs [self, soul], whose existence the person has affirmed, is its [the person’s] characteristic identity that is not identical to its body nor its limbs [whose existence] it did not affirm. Therefore, the attentive (al-mutanabih) [to this situation] has a means of realizing (yatanabah) that the affirmation of the existence of its-self (soul, al-nafs) is distinct from the body and something that is quite non-body [i.e. that the mind/soul (al-nafs) is distinct from the body (jism)]; this is known though self-consciousness and if one was distracted from it, one needs to knock one’s baton [as to be alerted to it].
—Ibn Sina, Kitab Al-Shifa, On the Soul[32]
The original Arabic text reads as follows:
يجب أن يتوهم الواحد منا كأنه خلق دفعةً وخلق كاملاً لكنه حجب بصره عن مشاهدة الخارجات وخلق يهوى في هواء أو خلاء هوياً لا يصدمه فيه قوام الهواء صدماً ما يحوج إلى أن يحس وفرق بين أعضائه فلم تتلاق ولم تتماس ثم يتأمل هل أنه يثبت وجود ذاته ولا يشكك في إثباته لذاته موجوداً ولا يثبت مع ذلك طرفاً من أعضائه ولا باطناً من أحشائه ولا قلباً ولا دماغاً ولا شيئاً من الأشياء من خارج بل كان يثبت ذاته ولا يثبت لها طولاً ولا عرضاً ولا عمقاً ولو أنه أمكنه في تلك الحالة أن يتخيل يداً أو عضواً آخر لم يتخيله جزء من ذاته ولا شرطاً في ذاته وأنت تعلم أن المثبت غير الذي لم يثبت والمقربه غير الذي لم يقربه فإذن للذات التي أثبت وجودها خاصية على أنها هو بعينه غير جسمه وأعضائه التي لم تثبت فإذن المثبت له سبيل إلى أن يثبته على وجود النفس شيئاً غير الجسم بل غير جسم وأنه عارف به مستشعر له وإن كان ذاهلاً عنه يحتاج إلى أن يقرع عصاه.
—Ibn Sina, Kitab Al-Shifa, On the Soul
However, Avicenna posited the brain as the place where reason interacts with sensation. Sensation prepares the soul to receive rational concepts from the universal Agent Intellect. The first knowledge of the flying person would be “I am,” affirming his or her essence. That essence could not be the body, obviously, as the flying person has no sensation. Thus, the knowledge that “I am” is the core of a human being: the soul exists and is self-aware. Avicenna thus concluded that the idea of the self is not logically dependent on any physical thing, and that the soul should not be seen in relative terms, but as a primary given, a substance. The body is unnecessary; in relation to it, the soul is its perfection. In itself, the soul is an immaterial substance.
Max Muller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying “the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza’s ‘Substantia’.[107] Helena Blavatsky, a founder of theTheosophical Society also compared Spinoza’s religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay “As to Spinoza’s Deity—natura naturans—conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity—as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple.”[108]
And here is a translation of “ayet el kürsi” which describes the absolute consciousness of God comparing it with human consciousness. Here is the translation by J. Arberry:
There is no god but He, the
Living, the Everlasting.
Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep;
To Him belongs
All that is in heavens and the earth.
Who is there that shall intercede with Him
Save by His leave?
He knows what lies before them
And what is after them,
And they comprehend not anything of His knowledge
Save such as He wills.
His Throne comprises the heavens and earth;
The preserving of them oppresses Him not;
He is the All-high, the All-glorious.
“There where is the nous, lies the treasure.” The Gospel of Mary, p. 10
Cnsc: Awareness of what is happening?

  1. Identity problem: Hüviyet, Mahiyet, Nefs: the problem of identity in semantics, logic math., science and metaphysics

Descriptions of the words : Identity, one, unity

i·den·ti·ty [ī déntətee]
(plural i·den·ti·ties)

1. what identifies somebody or something: the name or essential character that identifies somebody or something
2. essential self: the set of characteristics that somebody recognizes as belonging uniquely to himself or herself and constituting his or her individual personality for life
3. sameness: the fact or condition of being the same or exactly alike
4. mathematics equation true for all its variables: a mathematical equation that remains valid whatever values are taken by its variables
5. mathematics Same as identity element

[Late 16th century. < late Latin identitas < ident-, combining form of Latin idem “same” < id “that”]

i·den·ti·fy [ī dénti f]

i·den·ti·cal [ī déntik’l]

1. alike in every way: exactly the same as or equal to something else, or alike in every respect
  wearing identical dresses
  His name was identical to mine.
2. developed as twins from same egg: describes twins of the same sex and with the same genetic makeup that have developed from a single fertilized egg

-i·den·ti·cal·ly, adverb
-i·den·ti·cal·ness, noun

(past and past participle i·den·ti·fied, present participle i·den·ti·fy·ing, 3rd person present singular i·den·ti·fies)
transitive verb

1. recognize and name: to recognize somebody or something and to be able to say who or what he, she, or it is
2. consider as same: to consider two or more things as being entirely or essentially the same

[Mid-17th century. Directly or via French identifier < medieval Latin identificare “make the same” < ident- (see identity)]
-i·den·ti·fi·a·bil·i·ty [ī dènti fī ə bíllətee], noun
-i·den·ti·fi·a·ble [ī dénti f əb’l], adjective
-i·den·ti·fi·a·bly, adverb

identify with
intransitive verb

1. feel affinity with: to feel a strong sympathetic or imaginative bond with somebody or something and a sense of understanding and sharing his, her, or its nature or concerns
2. associate one thing with another: to consider somebody or something as closely linked with somebody or something such as a school of thought or political movement (often passive)


identity crisis
(plural i·den·ti·ty cri·ses)


1. anxiety about social role: a period during which somebody feels great anxiety and uncertainty about his or her identity and role in life and society, typically experienced in adolescence or middle age
2. anxiety of group: a period of anxiety or confusion about the nature, aims, and role of a group, organization, or business
Watch again the Story of one

one [wun]
unit unum essence of the universe
(plural ones) CORE MEANING: a grammatical word indicating a single thing or unit, and not two or more
  adjective just one accident out of thousands
  adjective a one-legged man
  pronoun Central Newark, once home to several bank branches, now has one.
  pronoun Bill got one of his boxing gloves off.

1. adjective, pronoun
unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic
  the one exception to this
2. adjective, pronoun
used to distinguish something: distinct from others of its kind
  from one thought to the next
3. adjective
at nonspecific time: relating to an unspecified time in the past or future
  one August afternoon
4. adjective
used for emphasis: used instead of “a” and “an” to emphasize a following adjective or expression (informal)
  He’s one cool customer!
5. adjective
particular: introducing the name of somebody who is not known to the speaker
  a letter from one Thomas Atherton of Southport
6. pronoun
typical individual: used to refer to people in general (formal)
  One can eat well here.
7. pronoun
somebody or something unspecified: used to indicate somebody or something not specifically identified (dated)
  the voice of one crying in the wilderness
8. pronoun
previously mentioned: used instead of a preceding noun to indicate somebody or something already mentioned
  nothing but an old vase, and a cracked one at that
9. pronoun
joke or story: used to refer to a question, joke, or remark
  That’s a good one!
10. noun
1: the number 1. It is the smallest whole number, designating a single unit, and the first cardinal number.
11. noun
something with value of 1: something in a numbered series with a value of one
  to throw a one
12. noun
U.S. dollar bill: a one-dollar bill (informal)
13. noun
time measure: used to indicate the time as one hour after twelve midday or midnight
  We’ll stop for lunch at one.
14. noun
music musical notation: the numeral 1 used as the bottom figure in a time signature to indicate that the beat is measured in whole notes

[ Old English ān < Indo-European]
all one not important enough to be of any consequence to somebody
  It’s all one to me.

in semantics Naming and Necessity. S. Kripke ve   dainton Phenomenal self
in logic logical atomism (“all propositions are TRUTH-FUNCTIONS OF elementary propositions, in other words that atomic propositions, which are singular, affirmative, and categorical and consist of logically proper names of simple entities together with an attributive or relational predicate, directly Picture their verifying facts,  while non atomic propositions conceal them)X  russsell doubted this reducibility eg.,intensional propositions about beliefs.  (logical positivists call them  protocol or basic propositios and saw them as direct, non inferential reports of experience rather than as pictures of facts.) the earlier suspicion of metaphysics hardened into pricipled hostility by viena circle
in math., : e.g. associative law  ax(bxc) = (axb)xc any function of two arguments which satisfies a similar identity is said to be associative, f.(g.h) (x) =f(g(h(x)))) = (f.g).h(x)) the law is taken as an axiom for many mathematical structures like groups… also in commutative law a+b = b+a axb=bxa  exception is exponentiation 2 üzeri üç 3 üzeri 2 ye eşit değil…  multiplication of quaternion s( a generalization of comlex numbers :their multiplications are not commutative= ve matricelerde de olmaz. Identity, in mathematics, a number or operation that leaves others unchanged when combined with them. Zero is the identity for addition; one is the identity for multiplication. For example:
7 + 0 = 7
7 × 1 = 7
math., coincidental identical,
And metaphysics Identity as a philosophical question
in nature: Empiricism and verification, confirmation, correspondence to the reality/ identity of facts
Sense impulses beware us about the existence of natural forces. They seem to belong to an external world which is outside of our body, different and alien to our selfhood. But what are these alien forces, and how are we going to identify those forces with anything, with any identifiable cause which affects us so and so.
Identity of a thing, thing-in-itself, unity and essence
Ve  dainton Phenomenal self
Sümbül efendi instead of theseus
particular/individual/ Singular (which means the identity of a thing in itself) versus universal/ holistic identity (conceptual beings like society)  like number (which is individual) versus general number theory  perception and conception: individuum (est ineffable) xUniversal
“Forma substantialis totius non superadditur partibus, sed est totum complectans materiam et formam cum praecisione aliorum”:”Nothing is added to the whole of the substantial form by the parts that constitute it, but it is the whole that embraces both content and form while maintaining the precision of the different parts that constitute the whole.” aquinolu st thomas
Foundational and accidental, physicalist monism, ultimate structure of matter
Beliefs about nature
Fact, event, process
Particular universal individualism/reductionism-holism
Time space causality substance
Monism dualism and bifurcated existence
Fork like existence  space-time space time out of space-time
Metaphysics All happens in time except God
What remains permanent in spite of time
Energy, substance, movement, causality, gravity, action at a distance, weak force, strong force, wave-particle duality electro magnetic field synchronical co-existence and diacronical events of time
Space time substance identity causality, unity
essence, unity, goodness, truth, thing, and something (Latin ens, unum, bonum, verum, res, and aliquid).

  1. different approaches to this problem: idealism, realism, nominalism, logicism–analythic philosophy, empiricism,

materialism, naturalism/ phsycalism,  empiricism, apriorism/rationalism,(substance and cause as categories of kant. there is a fixed amount of substance in the universe because ex nihilo nihil fit and every event has a cause)) scepticism, scientism, intuitionism, formalism realism idealism reductionism holism

  1. methodological disputes: reductionism, individualism and holism, syncretism, evolutionism, mysticism, historicism

different categories of being
monistic materialism implies that there is only one kind of existence which is bound to be phsical being in space and time
what is fundamental what is accidental illogical  character of QM
if a formal math cannot be consistent then comes into stage mathematical intuition
then if you are not platonist but formal mathematician how can you prove anything certainly without being sure the consistency of math
algorithmic probabilty m. Minsky mentioned
four kinds of existence
time, space, space-time out of space and time
causality, language, soul, self identiy, consciousness and mind exists in time
material objects of universe exist in space-time
overinflated materialism: everything exist only in space as atoms and time is an illusion
god, math, ideas, real substance of existence exist out of space and time
Identity thesis of consciousness:  Mind is identical with brain (consciousness, self awareness, self etc, they are all emergent properties of brain)
The real problem begins with identity of selfhood- which is the owner of the mind and consciousness and also whole body and this is the personal identity which perceives believes and conceives the whole reality of existence in accord with its tools of sense, common sense, mind, and metaphysical/linguistic tools of expression.
What is Mind? Mind (soul) and body problem. descartes
Mind and Consciousness: ego sum ego existo: knowledge begins with consciousness, comprehended by the mind and expressed by a language
1. Identity of selfhood: Who am I?, What Am I?
Personal Identity, what is particular about a person. It includes those qualities that distinguish one person from another and the consciousness of one’s own being or identity.
For information on:
• components of the self, see Anatomy; Personality; Mind; Intelligence; Soul; Will (philosophy and psychology)
• the awareness and nature of being, see States of Consciousness; René Descartes: Philosophy;Martin Heidegger: Being and Time
• the self defined by its own free choices, see Free Will; Existentialism; Søren Kierkegaard
• will as the essence of the self, see Arthur Schopenhauer
• self as the product of environment and experience, see George Herbert Mead; Ludwig Feuerbach
• ultimate self or absolute, which is God, see Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Dialectic;Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Self-Knowledge of the Absolute

  1. Mind and consciousness (awareness): know thyself! last frontier of the human quest is mind: why it is important? the implications of selfhood: (Cognosce te ipsum, gnothi sauton, men arefe nefsehu)
    3. Mind and its fictions and dreams : dreams, lucid dreams
    a. kinds of dreams (rem, lucid hypnotic etc)
    b. dreams of imagination and reality: art as a free and fictive dream of virtual reality by imagination creatrix
    c. constructive but constrained dreams,: time, causality and space, history, synchronical reality as present and futuristic dreams
    d. korzybski’s concept of time-binding
    4. mind and comprehension : apriori, aposteriori; empiricism rationalism scepticism


  1. Mind and its knowledge:
    1. works and tools of the mind: sensation, perception, conception, qualia (feelings), intuition, imagination creatrix, intellect and hitherto unknown resources of brain and selfhood like instincts
  2. acts of the mind and its perspectives: it dreams, creates, believes, knows (scire), contemplates, memorizes (the history of past experience) tries to find a meaning in his personal history and also, in history in toto, and tries to find the meaning of life and existence, aspirations of the soul, self articulation and realization of selfhood

III. How mind acquires knowledge? and what is true knowledge?
A-  Res cogitans :
1. Mind’s Limitations of consciousness :limited consciousness because of limited sensations: limits of sensory organs organs
sensation, perception, intuition, conception (analysis of conceptions and consistency), imagination, self awareness. A priori, a posteriori
Consciousness and perception: good example is The Simile of the Cave
2 Mind’s limitations of of expression tools : art and language; semantics, logics, mathematics
a. Mind’s linguistic limitations of comprehension because of the usage of everyday language and the logic of ordinary languages
b. semantics, abstraction levels, what is the meaning of truth? Truth:
c. Mind’s Logical limitations of reasoning: different kinds of logic.
d. Mind’s Mathematical limitations of reasoning for the conceptions of reality
Formal, realist and intuitive mathematics, Infinity and set theory, CH continuum Hypothesis ,What is space and space-time continuum? Geometry: space and its dimensions, Geometries with 2, 3, 4 ,6N 10, 11, 26 and “ n “ infinite dimensions, Euclid, Riemann, Lobachevsky, Hilbert 6N faz spin, chaotic, string (String theory needs 11 or 26 dimensions)
B- Res extensa:
Comprehensive limitations of Mind: empiricism, rationalism, scepticism
knowledge about external phenomenon:
perception and conception: individuum (est ineffable) Universal
facts, undividable individual event and events, Principle of individuation,) processes: substance-existence and events of space-time
substance-existence and events of space-time
external objects, name, concept: particular, universal individualism and holism
time, space, space time, substance (essence, mode, attribute), change, causality (necessary and Sufficient reason), determinism, consistency

  1. Instincts, intuition and illumination by mystical experience

critical evaluation and jurisdictive judgements:
Sceptical argumentation about mind and knowledge
Hayah means “existed” or “was” in Hebrew; “ehyeh” is translated in English Bibles as “I will be” or “I shall be”, Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as “I Will Be What I Will Be”.