Pwip XXX

Students of philosophy may come across the notions of good, truth, and beauty. These notions are related to the philosophical branches of ethics, ontology, epistemology, and aesthetics; and are initially somewhat simple. Each notion is, in a sense, innate to all humans. Evolution has provided many of the structures needed to develop biological beings. In as far as survival is concerned, most of what is considered good is given. The good may appear mundane or unnoticeable after time has passed. Individuals may take their abilities for granted until someone without such abilities is presented, then pity and gratitude may hopefully generate, and not some opposites. The good is contained in the pleasurable and the ethical, though the pleasurable and ethical don’t necessitate each other. Pleasure would appear of lesser complication than ethics.

Beauty is good when presented to an agreeable mind, for beauty is contained in pleasure. As such, beauty isn’t always compatible with the ethical good, sometimes not even truth. It attempts to go beyond a necessary good to a state of bliss, a desire which permeates one’s lifestyle and notion of an ideal world. Individuals attempt to mold a world particular to themselves. Depending on how closely their epistemology is related to the ontology, they may succeed or fail. Success leads to comfort, and individuals may fail to act on behalf of ethics because of it. Thus beauty may relate to the good through pleasure, yet not intersect with the ethical good. The fairness of any exchange of what is good or beautiful is perhaps resolved in economics or social law.

Beauty and the good appear dependent on truth, which is ultimately ontology, whereas the truth isn’t dependent on good or beauty for its existence. The beautiful, as an innate biological function and not the study of aesthetics, is very much concerned with understanding the pleasures and pains of the self; and the ethical good is an extension of that understanding to others. The full spectrum of truth consist of one’s own understanding and the understanding of others. It consist of one’s ignorance, known and unknown, as well as others. Truth contains its logical negation, even if the negation isn’t physically possible. And lastly it includes the truth as a thought presented to the awareness and/or communicated ideas, both of which are limited by time and individual cognitive capacities. Everything appears to be related to the truth, whereas the good and beauty are more so related to the pleasures and pains of the self and others.

A Philosophical Work in Progress VII

I like to think of my self as a duo of non-being and the being I am to/for other beings. For compared to all beings I am infinitesimally small, practically nothing. But I am also the composition of a mind, body, consciousness, observer, cells, particles, social roles, thoughts, senses, time, personality, history, etc.. I would assume that a perfect science, which is perhaps the expression of nature itself, would possess me as a well defined object, by use of objectivity. It may, however, be the case that no mind perceives objectivity, at least not a priori. All minds seem to follow a path determined by some set of data, but objectivity seeks a description of all data, without placing any significance or emphasis on a particular datum. The focused scope of the mind, i.e. subjectivity, leaves one vulnerable to error; for the broader world is placed outside of awareness. One may find it easier to reason from objective facts to subjective facts than the contrary. If one uses reasoning, which is perhaps the ability to organize thought, then one maybe able to discover or bring to consciousness content of various kinds and functions. Some notions are rather perplexing and the chances of misunderstandings and errors are present.

The conflict between determinism and freewill appear dependent on the time scale of the universe and the effect of its properties on humans. If the universe has no beginning or end and maintains fixed rules throughout, then there would probably be numerous opportunities for biochemistry to form. Science, however, has discovered a numerical beginning for the universe, viz. the Big Bang. Possessing an initial point seems to present one with a domino like concept of the universe, which is seen in classical mechanics I believe. On the other hand, logic or curiosity may negate an initial point by seeking a point before an initial point, or some other counterargument (perhaps by claiming the initial point and final point are one and the same). For though determinism must occur in accordance with the law that governs it, one can also say that all occurrences have already occurred in a sense and one can predict the future if one knows the law. All one seems to need to determine the future of a system is its initial state, the rules it obeys, and the objects obeying the rules. God is beyond all rules, but the moment one can breaks a rule one seems to lose the ability to predict future events, for there would be nothing from which to determine the future from (God is still beyond this as well).

No object in the universe behaves as if it knows everything that will occur. Minds seem to require some supporting principle or rule for the decisions they make; even if the rule is that one will break all rules, which is still a rule of sorts. The ability to maintain contradictory thoughts in one’s mind seems to oppose determinism, for determinism proposes a kind of certainty of course. Uncertainty and cognitive dissonance are perhaps illusions of consciousness, the mind or world as a whole may contain a specific and determined path.

Are we more free than our ancestors? We have better versions of various objects, plus more objective facts. These advance properties give us more control over space and time, which seems to imply more freedom. By making a necessity unnecessary, one frees one’s self from a limit. One seems to free one’s self from limitations by applying a novel limitation. So minds may generate meaning by giving value to objects that are merely objects, making them no longer mere objects. Objects are merely objects, but there’s no such object as a “mere object;” unless one means everything, which is the “mere object.” A mind seems only able to perceive particular objects, i.e. geometric descriptions and sensual experiences. Not only are some notions and experiences/descriptions difficult to express, but language itself appears to contain notions that are beyond empiricism, e.g. God.

Since beings can vary, it is probably the case that freedom varies. All minds may have the ability to decide what is freedom from what is not. Given the extent of my imagination, the physical body is rather limiting. Yet, when one considers that these objects are products of the development of a large amount of moving points, one tends to find amazement of some sort. Though the substance of minds are the same, i.e. we all have brains and are perceiving the same physical world, the desired form is different from being to being. This seems to be both an aesthetic and ethical dilemma. Is a universally appealing form possible?

Ethics seems to contradict freedom in that it implies a restriction. Freedom from all things is perhaps only attainable by God. One may seek to be free of many conditions in one’s thoughts; ethics, however, requires a fair or common distribution of freedom. All of this seems to also imply that one is choosing one’s master by choosing a limitation. For my mind would consider itself the master of my body, and an idea is master of my mind, an idea which is derived from my interaction with the world.

Pwip XXIX

Ethics as an abstract notion of justice or fairness becomes difficult to extract from the general system presently used to organize life. The brain is perhaps a natural computer, and the mind is the software. More understanding of the natural processes that cause various behaviors can result in better fixes for perceived errors. But the brain is highly complex. More complex maybe the mind, or perhaps rather and particularly the content the mind can generate and its deep rooted connection to the environment. There is the natural content from innate ability and the artificial content from culture and artifacts. When the content becomes consistent and honest, some individuals are less willing to accept changes. Though, philosophers, I suppose, can have a healthy skepticism towards the world.

Ethics appears controlling, since an individual would need or ought to be ethical, assuming there is an ethical program/lifestyle that can be tapped into given effort. There aren't many repeatable proofs in ethics that are concrete in the same way as mathematics and science, perhaps. Properties related to ethics seem to express themselves in some of the biological survival tactics, but no explicit expression of the ethical idea comes from irrational moral beings, unless by accident, assuming they possess a language. In fact, the psychology may oppose a discovery of an ethical science, as it would mean the subversion of any once perceived higher power (typically the self, god, ideology, or tribe). Ultimately, rational moral individuals would remain peaceful when undisturbed. Beyond entertainment value violence seems rather useless in safe environments. In a sense, the collective mind adjusts itself based on historical events (learning) and current relations (social dynamics).

The solutions achieved are shown through the results of a particular social system. A social state is perhaps measured by the condition of its population. A group appears to be in a good condition when all its member are in a reasonable positive state and bad when its members are in an unreasonable negative state. Positive states appear more difficult to detect if individuals are less than rational moral. One could be satisfied, yet proclaim discomfort to obtain an unfair advantage, or an individual could be unaware of an actual unfair social dynamic. Negative states are seen to cause population decay and chaos, which is more readily apparent.

Freedom appears closely related to attraction and repulsion, or particularly emotional acceptance and rejection. If an individual likes an event or sensation, it typically claims to be free because it pursued the action knowing the outcome, or it may not even consider its own freedom while engrossed in the positive event. One may consider enslavement, or a closely related notion, when one is experiencing unwanted pain or hardship. The negatives in philosophy appear to be errors in epistemology, or particularly the mapping from epistemology to ontology. The mind's relation to the world is different from different frames of reference, though the fact of some sort of organization, even if inefficient, implies a unification. Perhaps such can be considered a kind of option, options appearing to be a property of freedom. Though certain truths appear dependent on ontology (unification), epistemology (mind), or ethics. Psychologically knowing what is good can be taken quite easily from biology, if it isn't offered freely by it. Whether the biology is correct or not can be a scientific or philosophical consideration, one being whether physics allows such, the other being whether an action was truly the best it could have been. Philosophy converted to science is closer to practical truth, whereas pure philosophy is seemingly quiet idealistic. Some practical truths/notions appear to necessitate the ambiguity of philosophy, such as freedom, and would be more opposed to the scrutiny and certainty of science.

A Philosophical Work in Progress VI

Perhaps innocence is freedom from moral responsibility, i.e. freedom from moral behaviors and moral consequences. Mathematics being quite abstract is rather innocent. Numbers can be applied ubiquitously, but whether they are used for virtue or vice is outside the control of numbers (although in a sense numbers are part of the governing of the world). Accordingly nature is often also seen as innocent, although it is perhaps the true cause of pain and misfortune. This may all depend on whether determinism is somehow intentional. One may assume that if nature knew the pain it caused, and had the ability to negate it, it would negate it. I doubt there will ever be a day where nothing on this planet has died. Perhaps the longest living thing is the chemistry itself, which propagates itself though generation and death. One may conclude that nature itself is either cruel or incompetent.

Babies are also often seen as innocent. Yet they are equipped with various behaviors that allow them to intentionally take control of circumstances. This is opposed to the blind force of nature, which is perhaps also related to the notion of doing nothing, for typically one thinks nature external of a mind/brain is non-volitional. Most creatures appear to be reacting to some overall impression of the world. But no mind appears to be innately equipped with those necessary and arbitrary ideas needed for one to claim one understands the world (and perhaps one never understands the world, but rather only one’s own part of it). It doesn’t seem to be an easy task to get an overview of the world. Practically all animals that are not human are seen as innocent because they lack (or appear to lack) an overview of life. Yet, some innocent beings may still be punished for ethical transgressions.

Our nature is blind in the sense that no one knows everything. The blind force of nature is such because it only seems to know the laws which govern the movement of some particular unit/s. Both conditions could be used to argue for innocence. The choice to willfully perform an immoral action perhaps depends on a feeling and what is considered moral. Without a scientific system of ethics, most moral predicaments are resolved by taste or group authority. If one existed alone, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self?” If one existed with others, ethics would ask, “how should one treat one’s self? How should one treat others?” Usual answers seem to appeal to personal taste or preferences, which appears rather arbitrary and subjective. Yet, any legitimacy placed on a subjective ethical principle seems to imply some underlying objective phenomenon.

A Philosophical Work in Progress V

A real freedom is to be free from all things. Is being free from freedom being bounded? One is first bounded by not being God. We may all be parts of God, but the appearance of something, rather than everything, limits one’s freedom. Or, perhaps, one is freed from the everything when one becomes an individual. All laws seem to be ways of restricting freedom.

The difference between matter and mind is apparent when related to freedom. For if one is asked to build a wall in one’s mind, then asked to build one in the external world, one can immediately perceive more labor being exerted in the latter. Matter appears to exist prior to mind, but is mind primarily or originally mind or matter, i.e. is mind a chemical calculation or a motive/operation. Science seems to logically connect itself temporally by virtue of evolution, and events appear deterministically bounded, till they attempt to surpass present time, future time, and the Big Bang. The history of science itself appears to be an attempt to overcome human error and capacity, which can be seen as a limitation to freedom.

Other beings appear to limit the freedom of one’s own being if they are not under one’s own control. The freedom we all seem to have from the direct control, i.e. a mental command causing an object to move, of one another is perhaps what gives rise or want for an ethical system. For the human appears to distribute its potential among individuals; and some interactions can be, in my opinion, rather horrific. Perhaps one of the goals of Ethics is to resolve these unequal experiences among beings.

A Philosophical Work in Progress IIII

If nature had a feeling, it would probably be something analogous to nihilism or indifference. One may claim that nature is cruel, but may run into problems if one means to imply that nature is intentionally cruel, for such would include the feeling of choice making and application. I doubt nature possesses feelings or choices outside of the generations of minds, but anything could be the case if absurdity exist. A being either exist or not, and if it exist it does what it does (one can perceive in science or knowledge the existence of beings performing actions). The notion of ethics is expressed by humans, and features of it are seen in other creatures. Ethics relationship to nature is the question of whether it is a logical system discovered in nature or a human artifice; and how one applies praise and blame to different beings such as nature, other humans and creatures, objects, and notions.

Praise and blame are themselves entangled with states of mind, behavior, and logic. For one may show the attitudes or prolonged feelings of happiness or sadness through a smile or a frown. But upon the first appearance of a smile or a frown, i.e. a smile or frown without a context or history (like the tragedy and comedy masks), one infers happiness or sadness or pleasure or pain without any information. One may infer the existence of geometric shapes from the senses of sight or touch, and likewise perhaps one could infer ethics from history, biology, and interaction between the world and the observer.

How does ethics relate to nothingness? Like the number line, nothing seems related to the negative and positive, in that it is between the two. The positive appears better than nothing, assuming one can obtain a true positive (the positive is perhaps happiness). Real nothingness, i.e. nonexistence, can be seen as better than a certain degree of the negative. Typically creatures would prefer nonexistence to an existence of pure suffering. Science contains various criterion for judging various physiological and psychological states. Nothingness, being the final form of negation, is a transcendent form/being or notion like God, nature, reality, truth, logic, perhaps goodness and ethics.

One may be able to praise or blame nothingness. One can praise nothing in the same way as when one praises the negation of something negative occurring. One may blame the other for doing nothing to change a negative condition into a positive one when the other could have done something. For minds typically want other minds to take responsibility for being conscious or intelligent or possessing some other role that can affect moral circumstances. The way minds relate to one another is different from the way they relate to other physical objects.

Nothingness would imply that a mind does not exist, which would also mean ethics would not exist in nothingness. A mind may judge nonexistence as bad if it judges existence as good. The logic of the mind appears to be quite different from the logic of the universe. Whereas the world is merely the appearance of something, the mind is in the world and over the world. Ethics is relates to how minds allot the physical world, since the body must change the world in order to change itself.

A Philosophical Work in Progress III

I think Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason are appropriate examples of ethical systems. Aristotle analyzed individuals according to extremes in personality traits; what was considered ethical or best was the midpoint between extremes. Kant formulates a law, the categorical imperative, which generally states that a human should only act in ways that that human would allow other humans to act in. The question for every moral theory is whether it is subjective (a notion) or objective (an object)? Any ethical system derived from science should be objective and found in nature, like science; but subjectivity has much to say on the subject of ethics.

The biological entity appears to have a sense of what is good and what is bad, and perhaps it derives such a sense as an extension of please and pain; for the unconscious maybe a consolidation of all the knowledge that the biological being possesses. But this is where the difference between biology and psychology becomes apparent; for biological awareness is what occurs at the cellular level, which is beyond our immediate experience of the world. Perhaps the biology inferred that if it is a colony of cells, then it would be best to gather information about colonies of cells rather than individual cells. Physics can then provide a scalar relationship between objects in space, which I think are the qualities of large and small being represented with quantities. Knowing is only one kind of action, an observer may perceive the biological entity performing all sorts of actions. Thought, either one’s own thoughts or another’s, may consider some actions as moral or immoral, and perhaps any attempt to understand those notions are pursued in human centered science. Science, however, does not contain a system of ethics, I believe. The question is whether that exclusion of a formal ethical system is due to a lack of an ethics in nature or a lack of discover.

Most human systems contain laws that mediate and govern our wide range of behavior. Existence itself may have a wide range of motions, yet what one perceives is ordered occurrences, instead of the chaos or complete silence of everything. For what would the image of all the visual memory of an individual superimposed on one another look like, or what would all the feelings one has felt feel like if experienced simultaneously? Usually the appearances are consecutive and somewhat predictable.

For me, science begins with the study of simple objects, such as simple three dimensional shapes, but that is to say I’m extracting a universal idea from a common perception of existence. In this case, one seems to take commonality for granted, then moves logic along with an “always happening.” Nothing is eternal with reference to God, but time allows occurrences to happen for long durations.

Following the lines of Aristotle’s worldview, to be good with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way, is an odd thing to judge as easy or difficult. A good being shouldn’t find it difficult to be good, for it is predicated to be good. But beings are malleable and adaptable, thus they may become something other than good. A good being can still perform wrong actions; such errors can lead to bad outcomes and could be seen as immoral by other beings. The notion of goodness is ambiguous much like God, logic, nature, and science which exist universally (or, perhaps, because they exist universally).

Hume expressed his ethical system using the dualities of praise and blame. These dualities are more concrete than good and bad, for they imply a judgment and pointing by persons, e.g. one can point out errors in systems with goals, or one can be aware of pleasure and an object which generates that affect. Theoretically, one maybe able to have a being categorize all the possible actions in existence as good or bad/praise or blameworthy. Problems typically occur when multiple beings are categorizing actions and have the ability to dissent from one another. Well, there is only a problem if ethics necessitates that all beings agree on which actions are good or bad.

It seems to me that there are psychological differences in how praise and blame are applied to various situations. One praises those objects which gives one pleasure. Pleasure, a feeling, is activated by appealing sensations. What is considered a moral action comes as a sensation. What appeals to the senses is perhaps not as important as why a sensation appeals to a mind or biological being. For biological beings the appeal appears to be related to the energy exchanges between the world and the being. The mind, being a record of the biological beings experiences, perhaps finds its appeal in how aspects of the world are connected.

The mind intersects the world at some point, but it appears multiple minds cannot intersect the world at the same point, for such would imply that two minds can exist in the same place at the same time. There are cases where two minds may appear to exist in the same place and time simultaneously, such as split personalities, identical twins, or collectivism. For we all exist on the same planet and share similar knowledge. These facts and other similarities are used to justify the assumption that others possess minds and consciousnesses. Yet, there are differences between minds/consciousnesses, for there would exist no friction or conflict if there were no differences. This may all be a result of intersecting the world from different points. Two physical points not being able to exist in the same position in space at the same time implies a distinct history for both points.

Perhaps ethics revolves around a logic based on the notions of good and bad, which are derived from biological functions (particularly the feelings pleasure and pain; and the behaviors or applications of praise and blame). What are the outcomes of categorizing something as good or bad? I would think God is to blame and praise for all that happens, but I’m unsure what that implies. A part blaming or praising the whole implies it blaming or praising the other parts that together make the whole. God is still beyond the whole.

The notion of ethics is also strongly related to judgments and decisions, Because the creation of a consciousness/mind in existence is so subtle, it has many degrees of freedom. Why one does what one does is a personal question. An ethical system seems to require a kind of universality. Science can tell one how to stay alive, but it doesn’t tell one how to exist; it merely exclaims what exist in nature.

The appeal to the senses is desire, for one comes to know what one wants through multiple interactions with the world and with one’s self. The desires of the self appear distributed between the biological structure and the particular mind which it possesses. The desires of the world are the wants of other beings and the necessity of physics. Though all are objects of praise or blame, the consequences of each are different.

A Philosophical Work in Progress II

The mind is what the brain is doing, or one could extend the brain to include the whole cellular system. Where is the observer relative to the mind and the world? The brain appears to recreate or represent the information it receives from the other organs, and the other organs communicate their conditions to the brain. Thus the world is how the brain represents the organs’ reactions to the world acting on them. The brain also manipulates the information it produces, perhaps automatically. One manipulation is extending the innate first-person view to the third-person or bird’s eye view. The observer perceives the five senses and the abstractions, and to the mind the mental constructs are perhaps more congruent with “reality” than the sensations. The observer is everywhere a mind is, in a sense; but since the mind is a product of the cellular system, and the cellular system is a logical operation of physical material, the observer could be physical material itself, wherever it may exist.

The only particular objects that matter philosophically are everything or/and God, which in themselves are not pragmatic; for everything is omniscience, which is beyond human capacities; and God in Its nature is beyond nature, therefore any talk of it appears to be nonsensical and absurd (I myself will not stand by my own words about God because I’m not God). In any case, such notions are investigated and categorized under philosophy, which in some sense associates philosophy with absurdity. I think this understanding merely serves as a warning of sorts when one is moved to duality, i.e. something other than the absolute.

What is the process by which nothing becomes something, and something becomes everything, then everything becomes one thing, and one thing becomes nothing? I think such is a simple logical question derived from word play. Yet, what it means to be, which is the study of ontology in philosophy, entails the notions of what does it mean to become and what does it mean to cease being, or whether such actions even occur? My immediate answer to such a question would be that one needs to look at particulars in order to understand universals (even though everything is insignificant in relation to God; it is also as great as God, assuming what is below God is still part of God).

I assume I’m in the “something” part of the process of existence because of an appearance. The appearance has an immediate form and a mediate form as it comes through consciousness. To the observer the immediate form of the appearance is all that passes through one’s mind at any given moment. The mediated form of the appearance are those items which affect us yet are outside of our awareness; such would include those perpetual mechanisms in the brain that find their expression in the mind yet go unnoticed by consciousness. It is science that assists us with understanding the appearance of something which is complex and nebulous upon first acquaintance. One may need to use the immediate appearance to move about the mediate appearance to acquire scientific knowledge. Science can then begin with the study of simple objects, such as simple three dimensional shapes; that is to say I’m extracting a universal idea from an extremely common perception of existence. In this case, one seems to take commonality for granted, then moves logical connection along with an “always happening.” This may all be a result of a kind of trust in a system or what one considers truth. The expression or organization of knowledge (in words at least) comes in many forms; but two interlocutors can simply agree on a mutual understanding and hope it is true. Real truth is perhaps with God, but absurdity/paradox is difficult for the mind to comprehend.

Ethics, I believe, is a formalization of the natural behavior of cooperation. Creatures typically cooperate or conflict, and that maybe a result of the attraction and repulsion forces, or the general fact of dualities, which manifest polarizations. Diurnal life, however, is not as disambiguous as polar opposites (which usually express themselves with terms like good/bad, moral/immoral, virtue/vice). What would God, a being beyond ethics, think of ethics (assume God does something analogous to thinking)?

The leap from ontology to ethics feels quite pretentious, it would be best to look at problems first. The general truth of appearances is, in my opinion, found in science. For science is our best record of what nature is. However, the records themselves are subjective; science would consider nature to be an objective entity (basically meaning a being that is outside of one’s self). The observer itself is either outside, inside, or both in relation to one’s self. For one’s self is one’s whole self. In reference to ontology, one’s whole self is everything, for one is a part of all things. It seems to me that all ethical systems exclude some aspect of the everything. Perhaps many ethical behaviors can be supported by science, since science is the expression of objects in space and what they are doing.

Philosophy and science are both similar in that they seek the truth, where they diverge is perhaps at some extreme point generated by philosophy. The use of science as a bases for ethics does help in placing one’s mind in a natural context, I believe. One could think of nature as the observable universe, and the limit of sight. Sight itself is a strong sense in reference to science. How far out does one extend the notion of ethics? Theoretically, one may extend one’s ethical system as far as to God (although it may become absurd at that point). What one should encompass in one’s ethical system is an ethical question involving exclusion.

Science informs the mind of objects in nature that immediate nature, perhaps, cannot inform the mind of. Again, one is not born with scientific knowledge; it is acquired or discovered in nature. Science allows one to trace back to the origin of an object, and by knowing what an object has done, one can infer what an object can do. Roughly the objects studied in science are particles, molecules, cells, creatures, societies, and galaxies. Ethics mostly revolves around societies and creatures; this exception is related to what makes science and ethics different, and that is to say ethics seems to exclude extremely small and large objects and objects that are not constructed from cells.

I think Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason are appropriate examples of an ethical system. Aristotle analyzed individuals according to extremes in personality traits; what was considered ethical or best was the midpoint between extremes. Kant formulates a law, the categorical imperative, which generally states that a human should only act in ways that that human would allow other humans to act in. The question for every moral theory is whether it is subjective (a notion) or objective (an object)? Any ethical system derived from science should be objective and found in nature, like science; but subjectivity has much to say on the subject of ethics (subjectivity being one’s present thoughts and experiences).

For the most part, the biological entity has a sense of what is good and what is bad, and it probably derives such a sense as an extension of pleasure and pain, for the unconscious maybe a consolidation of all the knowledge that the biological being possesses. But this is where the difference between biology and psychology becomes apparent. For biological awareness is what occurs at the cellular level, which is beyond our immediate experience of the world. Perhaps the biology inferred that if we are colonies of cells, then it would be best to gather information about colonies of cells rather than individual cells. Physics can then provide a scalar relationship between objects in space, which I think are the qualities of large and small being represented with quantities. Scientific data one can obtain quite easily from the internet was rather difficult to acquire, express, and propagate, and still, knowing is only one kind of action. An observer may perceive the biological entity performing all sorts of actions. Thought, either one’s own thoughts or another’s, may consider some action moral or immoral, and perhaps any attempt to understand those notions are pursued in psychology. Science, however, does not contain a system of ethics, I believe. The question is whether that exclusion of a formal ethical system is due to a lack of an ethics in nature or a lack of discovery.

On the other hand, science does contain social science, which is a record of the various social systems which have been observed. Most social systems contain laws that mediate and govern the wide range of possible behaviors. Existence itself may have a wide range of motions, yet what one perceives is an ordered occurrence (given significant time has elapsed), instead of the chaos or complete silence of the everything. For what would the image of all the visual memory of an individual superimposed on one another look like, or what would all the feelings one has felt feel like if experienced simultaneously? Usually the appearances are consecutive and somewhat predictable. Nothing is eternal with reference to God, however, occurrences may happen for long durations of time. Knowledge of a continuity is the insight from science or memory/rationality. The first continuity one may perceive is existence, and any most laws seem to consider existence. It is through the notion of existence that one is able to form considerations, and perhaps one can simply jump into any moral dilemma by use of consideration. For typically one considers the goodness and badness of actions.

A Philosophical Work in Progress

When a rational being intends to understand the entirety of existence, then it begins to philosophize. I believe it may begin with the expression of a meaningful series of questions. The expressions are arbitrary; it is the feeling or notion that is distinct. The notion of philosophy in a broad sense is the study of everything. Most humans, it would seem, do not seek to know everything; such a goal is quite unrealistic. Yet any attempt to escape the ennui of any circumstance would require that one tries to transcend the circumstance, even if the attempt is futile.

Perhaps the goal of philosophy is to know as much as one can. That seems to be what many philosophers do, they either explicitly state what they know, or they express a method that one can use to obtain knowledge. I personally prefer the Socratic Method, in which case one seeks knowledge through systematic questioning; although in practice most investigations fall short of a perfect or complete line of questioning. From what I have seen it would be foolish (perhaps impossible) to depend solely on the Socratic Method, but as a preliminary method it is as good as any other, and easily accessible.

The first notion which comes to my mind when I begin to think about what it means to “know” is observation. To observe a phenomenon is to experience it, which is to sense it in some way. On the other hand, to observe could merely mean to be aware of something. It sounds more proper for one to say “I am aware of knowledge,” than “I sense knowledge.” Typically individuals say they have/possess knowledge.

An observer is perhaps the best description of an object that mindlessly absorbs or somehow “perceives” information (information being a more concrete notion of knowledge). How the observer, or perhaps one could say an extended meaning of observer, is used by various mechanisms is quite complex. For one, the observer is the focal point of experience, particularly sensational experiences. This focal point can be awareness of one’s self. By what I have seen, most philosopher take the awareness of self and extend it to the awareness of others, the world, or god, and justly so I believe; for any object that cannot move beyond self awareness may not possess consciousness nor sentience. I myself do not imagine dead objects as objects that are only aware of themselves. I imagine physical space to be something analogous to multiple layers of infinitesimally thin cloths, or as infinitesimally small spheres which become more massive when they clump together. The mathematics, however, seems to show that the act of picturing a particular object itself is erroneous. But I know very little about such facts.

For me, the observer can be seen as a point on a plane. Knowledge is a network inside that point, with different nodes representing discrete information. This, however, is a mathematical analogy, and I lack a formal grasp of mathematics, albeit I’ll still use mathematical metaphors. The observer and knowledge relationship is also similar to the mind and body relationship; although I would consider the observer to be the thing below Descartes “cogito ergo sum.” The mind or body can be said to possess information, whereas the observer only senses information.

The interaction between observer and knowledge is very much like a Cartesian Theater, but the individual or thing viewing the stimuli/events also views the reflections, thoughts, and judgments being made. The observer becomes a problem when language is introduced, whereas knowledge becomes a problem when logic is introduced. There are many issues that need to be addressed.

No matter the perspective one takes, in practice at least, one can never have a view of everything (everything meaning omniscience). Knowledge of everything would imply producing a model or summary of everything. Exclusion of any detail could be seen as incomplete work. But to make an exact replica of everything would require everything. Creating another time and space similar to our own seems beyond the powers of a human being. Language is the closes we can get to a display of everything, with philosophy as the notion of the pursuit of truth and knowledge, despite its apparent ultimate failings. Everything is the collection of all particular things, and language implies that a particular thing be expressed.

Language itself is mediated by the thought of an agreed upon idea. Whether the idea is actually consistent in both minds, i.e. whether observers perceive the same events or two different events, is rarely analyzed in great detail; the notion of a common sense is typically applied to a circumstance by observers occupying a local space (local merely meaning one can interact with another). The notions of change and difference automatically conflict with the notion of a common sense, which leads me to the issues with knowledge and logic.

I am no logician, but I find the idea of logic quite compelling. All practical matters appear to require the minimum of an informal understanding of logic; Aristotle’s Organon could be an example of a formal theory of logic. Logic is profoundly useful in investigations on particular subjects. However, it is a difficult ideal to aspire to in philosophy. How can I obtain the knowledge of everything if it must also contain its negation, viz. non-philosophy/not everything? Particular items are not everything (unless the particular item in question is everything), but they are all still parts of philosophy (some particular categories in philosophy are ontology, epistemology, ethics, axiology, among others).

The second problem with logic is truth. What exactly is truth? It is perhaps best understood in comparison to its opposite, falsity. But falsehoods are truths one excludes from one’s own system of truths (for what would an unassailable reasoning or ultimate truth look like?). I would consider falsity to still be a truth, i.e. it is true that some propositions are false. The strongest truths typically are associated with empiricism. However, the observer perceives more than just sensory information. Most individuals observe science, religion, philosophy, or intuition in their models of the truth. Subjective truths are also in effect, and they generate more complications. Truth makes all notions ambiguous, and most methods fatal.

Thought seems to be the mechanism in which ideas obtain a praxis existence. Usually I think of thought as the internal monologue. Yet, there are many mechanisms which operate in us. One can repeat a single word in one’s mind while thinking of other ideas (either simultaneously or consecutively, I’m unsure which) and moving the body about. We have the connotation and denotation of words, i.e. the facts words express and the feelings associated with the words. We possess memory, which leads to the notion of time. The mind has many abilities, yet it has a limit.

Perhaps it can be said that the observer is viewing a consciousness. I can only speak for myself and those who may think like me, although I can’t guarantee certain truth. My consciousness is one of many. So whereas one could consider one’s self as a single point on a plane, life is multiple points on a finite plane moving about gaining and losing points as it goes along. Humans seem to be the only creatures that attempt to express universal facts about the world explicitly and logically. I believe it best to first focus on the non-intuitive facts/atypical senses of the world, which one may fall upon while investigating grander problems.

The validity of science is obtained from the expressions of observations made by observers from various times and places on the earth. The reoccurrence of particular ideas, perhaps expressed in different ways, binds them to the mind; one may become more attentive and reactive to those features of the world. Overall science seems to be a learnt skill, or perhaps it is the extension of the curious will.

What is consider natural after time has operated on it? Most, if not all, humans use ideas formulated by others. It seems that it is through mastery of one skill that we invent novel items. People praise those skills that go beyond naturally and universally inherited abilities, e.g. no one praises another for breathing (unless the individual is a new born, or recovering from an injury). Science is the study of nature qua nature, which seems to imply that it is somehow innate to nature, although its modern interpretation is not in the mind from birth. It is the ability to question or be curious that appears innate in us, though how strongly the emotion is felt depends on an individual’s proclivity.

It seems to me that social, genetic, and first-person forces push the individual toward particular actions. I want to remove errors and acquire vital truths of the world, which would perhaps be achieved quickly and efficiently if I survey the works of the most profound minds to appear on earth. I can’t enumerate every author I’ve ever read; I hope their influence on my mind is entailed in my thoughts. The hope of philosophy is to constantly go beyond any limits.

The limit of philosophy appears to be God. My personal understanding of God is acquired by first negating all other notions of it. If I have any direct relationship with God, it must be founded in my nature. Philosophy being the study of everything, and God being the limit of philosophy, makes God everything itself or something beyond everything. In any case, God can be used as an extreme notion.

Religion/theology is the study of God. God being the initial and/or final being is, in some sense, the ultimate being. Like every other religion, I would say all other religions contain some truths and many errors. I’m perhaps not a religious individual, but I do enjoy playing with the notion of God. For instance, I would consider It both within and beyond understanding, which is logically absurd; yet if absurdities exist, they must exist in existence.

What is the relationship between science and religion? Maybe science is a set of axioms or vitally true propositions one uses to make sense of the universe. If God can be known, then the universe in question is either the universe of God or a part of God’s universe, or perhaps God is the universe. In any case one would need to think about one’s own relationship with God. From the viewpoint of mere existence, a relationship with God is a relationship with anything at all.

Science is an amalgamation of findings from studies on the natural world, i.e. the world of the senses. Information picked up by our senses are encoded into language and recorded in or on a medium of some sort. The medium of self seems to be the focus of experience or the immediate container of the observer, all of which is perhaps summed up to be consciousness. Consciousness is a strange object, but in relation to the natural/physical world, it appears to be a logical outcome of complex and dynamic forces. All things or anything can be just byproducts of God; or certain things can be specially made by God.

There may be no way to truly know which actions are from God or from something other than God, e.g. accidents or byproducts from God’s mere existence. One notion that I believe is the doing of God (assuming It does something more than merely existing) is logic, or “the rules of mere existence."

The brain seems to have a function that is directed toward the physical world, the senses, and a function that is directed toward symbolism, reasoning. These properties can conflict or supplement each other; for reason appears to contradict sensation when one expresses a particular happening that is not actually happening, which is a falsity. The truth, however, is usually sought for outside of one’s simple self, i.e. the scientific truth is objective and serves a function.

What is expressed in society serves a social function. How exactly does the "social being” exist? Individuals must somehow cooperate while pursuing personal goals/motives. Simply put, we work in the best interest of our being, which is a complex system. What is God’s hand in the harmonious movement of beings?

Some Thoughts on Ethics

Is the core of what is considered ethical in my feelings or is it in my thoughts? Thoughts are propositional statement like mental objects, and by mental perhaps it can mean subjective events, which are one’s personal experiences. Experiences are our perceptions of the world. Perceptions are quite complex, for both feelings and thoughts are perceptions because we perceive them, or are aware of them. Experiences are also conceptions, recollections, emotions, ideations, etc. Does the suffix -tion have anything to do with the nature of experience? -Tion is used to form abstract nouns from verbs or stems not identical with verbs, whether as expressing action (revolution; commendation), or state (contrition; starvation), or associated meanings (relation; temptation), says dictionary.com. Recollections, emotions, conceptions, and ideations are all states of mind, since we can feel or cause these events to occur in us, and can distinguish each thing by the mere feeling of it, without having to use propositional statements. However, though we think in propositional statements, our thoughts are still feelings essentially, since we must be in a particular state of mind to have any particular thought. Therefore, thoughts and feelings are distinguishable, yet are both states of mind. Perhaps the core of ethics is in a state of mind?

Maybe what caused me to compare and contrast feelings and thoughts was in the distinction between states of mind and propositional statements. States of mind are innate to objects in reality, all objects have a “feel” to them; ie all objects influence the senses, either directly by touching or somehow interfering with our sensory system, or indirectly by affecting something that affects our sensory system. States of mind are created by those effects and the other capacities of the mind. Another capacity of our minds (by our here I mean human minds) is language. Language is connected to propositional statements. The main function of language seems to be communication with other organisms, and the organization of ideas and concepts. For the words I use are more than just mental or physical noise, by which I mean nonsense. Nonsense being the opposite of sense is something I can only experience as incomprehensibility, or no appeal to any sense at all, which can be achieve by disconnecting or not having the capacity for a particular sense. Language is directly connected to our senses, since we must somehow be able to sense the other being we are attempting to communicate with. Language also requires being able to perceive certain motions as being more than accidental occurrences. Most accidental occurrences are mindless matter reactions, but some are mindful matter actions. Mindful matter actions are motions meant to achieve something more than mere motion, either now or in the future. But all one can ever get from existence is motion essentially, yet our goals are not completely random and without some sort of organization, so language must be organized movement of some kind. Language is just another state of mind, but with a particular organization of moving parts.

Perhaps the core of ethics is in the idea of truth and falsehood. These two ideas are related to propositional statements and accidental occurrences. I have a state of mind that I can call truth, or the feeling of truth, and one that I can call falsehood, or the feeling of falsehood. These words I write are clear and to the purpose for me, though it may not be for others, but these distinctions are causes by differences in our mind states, particularly and most likely in the various ways that states of mind can be organized. Most coherent thought has an idea or feeling of truth or falsehood applied to it. The distinction between truth or falsehood is first based on what exist, then based on how mindful actions are interpreted. Existence is given. Interpretation is knowing or understanding the meaning of an action, ie knowing or understanding why the action occurred. Knowing or understanding are states of mind we analogize to truth or falsehood. All actions appear to me to be accidental motion or mindful motion, perhaps the core of ethics is in this distinction.

(How do physical laws manifest ethical phenomena or thought? Do they manifest these things?)

God and Ethics

How does God affect the nature of ethics? For some people claim that an atheist has no objective morality. I’m assuming this claim doesn’t infer that an atheist is a savage of some sort. Regardless, ethics is a rational standard for behavior. Evolution has provided each creature with a means to accomplish its ends, which for the most part is survival. And as the earth is the only place in the observable universe with life, we all have the possibility of interaction, since the earth is a finite object. Obviously some general rules would be a natural outcome of the circumstances.

Though I advocate a rather broad ethical standard, something along the lines of not doing harm to others, I can understand any other ethical standards, granted it is sensible. All the religions and philosophies that advocate some kind of ethical system are concerned with the human condition and its maintenance. As a human, there are things I need and things I want; and there are particular ways in which to accomplish these ends. The existence or non-existence of God has no fundamental effect on how I must live in order to live comfortably. I believed in God as a child, and now I do not. This change in my understanding of reality hasn’t altered my need for food, air, water, and other vital functions.

I mean, how could I not possess a knowledge which I claim and prove to have? I don’t have to believe in God to understand the words in the the bible, what the ten commandments are, what laws are, what the constitution is, etc. I just believe a synthesis of different philosophies is closer to the truth. And I prefer more literal explanations for my reality; religions are far too metaphorical for my taste. Ultimately all ethical dilemmas are circumstantial. The outcome will always depend on the mind’s understanding of reality and the possible motions of the world.

The Mind-Body Problem

Rene Descartes’s distinction between the mind and body was that the mind is a non-extended, thinking thing; and the body is an extended thing which does not think. It is a distinction between the mind and the body that many people maintain; however it creates unavoidable problems, the main one perhaps being how an non-extended object can interact with an extended object?

The limitation of science in describing the relationship between body and mind does not outweigh its ability to identify mechanisms and relationships between the two constructs. There is no proof for a mind existing without a body. For the most part, any organism with a brain structure has a mind of some kind. It may also be safe to assume all organisms with a mind are having profoundly different experiences. But as biologically manifest phenomena in the same universe, we must all have a common factor to our existence, which is our functionality.

The impression of the external world is projected internally. The sense or result of chemical interactions, i.e. reactions in the body to stimulus, create a subjective experience that perceives events, this we identify by observing behavior we relate to that of an object possess of a subjective experience or a mind. Our complex structure of chemical interactions resulted with sensations, drives, and intelligence; none of which appear to be beyond the capacity of physics. Physics is a description of a kind of motion; sensations, drives, and intelligence are all known by a relationship to an object or behavior. All minds are known by their relationship to a body. We have never seen a mind that has no body (even ghost have a form or behavior which makes their presence known). If we have never seen a non-extended object, how can we say such a thing exist? All things known must exert some kind of observable force for us to identify its existence.

There is no physical law that claims nature can not create a thinking object. Why can’t the body think? A mind isn’t extended because it is an action or function; not an object in space, but rather a characteristic inferred by the behavior of an object, i.e. the body. People typically say we use our minds; as if it is a tool we use. And we do not say concepts such as eating or walking are objects, we say they are descriptions of actions, i.e. motions of objects. In both cases the mind is related to something it is external to and also subjected to, which is the body.

The mind must be a product of a tangible object; for a non-extended force can not interact with an extended force, only extended forces can interact. Extension would indicate a multitude of particles, which would appear as a mass of some magnitude. Whereas a non-extended force is no particles, or perhaps one or a few. And we know extension is merely a characteristic of space and time. Thought is a brain function, and a brain is a multitude of particles arranged in a specific manner. Though we don’t have a complete model of the motions of all the particles that make a brain, when can correlate specific parts to specific functions.

The distinction Descartes appears to be making is between agent and action. Consciousness isn’t producing the phenomena of having a body, it is a function of the biological machine, viz. an active brain structure, typically within a body. It can feel as if the mind is outside the body, because there are many body states which result in different mental states, one such state creates a feeling of distance from the body. Is this surprising, considering that various chemicals can manifest a variety of particular bodily, and consequently mental, states? Anything that can be considered to possess the characteristic of a mind must be in some way expressing this possession through the utilization of energy/matter.

On Consciousness

Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them. However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies looking outwards at phenomena. This is not only the case for physical phenomena, but also for mental phenomena; for when we utilize the mechanics of imagination, we still appear to be an internal object looking upon some external phenomena (inside ourselves). Is it possible that the object which is looking outwards is consciousness? What consequences follow if this object, which is something within us looking outwards, is consciousness?

If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.

Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?

My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.

On Purpose II

An object as massive as the universe, or even more fundamental, existence itself, could not possibly have been actualize for any other reason than that it could not have not happened. It is impossible for absolute nothingness to exist at any point in time, therefore existence must have always existed in some form. There is no other source for existence other than existence itself. Every phenomena in this place, including ourselves, are just parts of this whole. It has no innate or ultimate purpose, it’s merely a self propelled force. Ultimately, we also have no profound purpose. However, our brains are capable of simulating various perspectives of reality. All we need is an object in which to pursue, and we will begin to formulate means to obtain it. This knowledge of our possibilities and necessities gives rise to the concept of purpose. A consequence of the body’s adaptation to the environment.

The capacity for pain and pleasure(the negative state and positive state of the body) is the bases for the idea of purpose. If pain and pleasure did not exist, it would be impossible to know what situations we should pursue and which we should avoid. Also, how would creatures learn and evolve without these senses? It is necessary that a rational being have the ability to identify dysfunction and efficiency, as rationality requires a universal logic and adaptable mechanics. For sensations are reactions, or reflexes, to the environment. How else could the body possibly maneuver this harsh environment?

Purpose is nothing more than a pain and pleasure motivator. Even knowledge, the most valuable object in existence, is weighed in accordance to its efficiency at achieving some pleasure or avoiding some pain. Without sensations of pain and pleasure, knowledge would be nothing more than a collection of useless data. And, unless the world is adapting to the individual in it, it is impossible to live without some kind of adaptation to the environment.

If it is a fact and truth that there is no intrinsic purpose to life and existence, than is it permitted for people to take advantage of others for personal gains? For what end would an intelligent being do so, knowing its existence is not permanent, and nothing is greater than the whole? The rational choice is to formulate a harmonious relationship with the environment and acquire valuable information. Only knowledge has proven to be effective in preserving contentment, for brute strength is not enough, an understanding of direction is needed, in living entities at least. And happiness seems to be the goal of most.

(Footnote: Though life is purposeless, virtue is logically preferable to vice. Virtue is another concept which imposes on the mind. For all rational beings do what they perceive as good; and most shall agree that those who do evil to themselves or others for the sole reason of evil or pain are irrational. Therefore, if purpose exist, one must maintain also the virtue exist. What actions are virtuous?)

Pwip XXV

Since one idea implies the existence of all possible ideas, and the representation of such a concept as a point of view is beyond human cognitive abilities, we instead use abstractions. All knowledge is perhaps an approximation of the truth. How one arrives at whatever truth one finds is perhaps a matter of epistemic paths. From the perspective of the first-person one must develop one’s philosophy. One will perhaps naturally pick up on particular patterns in the world without putting forth much mental effort, or perhaps intention, to know those facts. Yet it appears that one’s own first-person view is just one of multiple first-person views, which is similar to the domain of ideas, in that all ideas are one of many. The mind while thinking of one concept may fail in bringing other concepts into its view, which is similar to the range of perception.

There are perhaps a few special ideas which supersede other ideas, and existence appears to be one of them. Anything can be put forth to represent existence. The node which would represent the idea of one’s self is one among many due to existence’s omnipresence. Ideas do not possess first-person views unless they are being expressed through first-person views. Yet it seems the idea of the Statue of Liberty doesn’t go away when I cease to think of it, neither does it seem the object which the idea reference is destroyed when I cease to look at it. The idea of the world is like the idea of the self, in that it is dynamic, both constant and changing. Physical information provides a history of the external world that any being contained within should be able to access in some form. The world as an idea, that is as something that not only is happening, but also could have happened, and in such a case has already happened and is simply waiting on actuality, may not be so easy to access by every being. Where one’s mind will move in thought seems to depend on where it has been, and its potential.

Plato suggested the only good leader for society would be a philosopher king. Would not such an individual need expert knowledge in all aspects of existence? That feat appears to require rather precise configurations from the individual who would take the role. An epistemic threshold seems needed to pass as knowledgeable or informed on a particular subject. With enough concentration on one field one can pass the threshold, or meaningful node, in ones own epistemic path. Factors such as time, perspective, and disposition limit the amount and type of goals one embarks on. In the end most individuals possess a philosophy that is judged good enough, which would require the learning of particular patterns for others to fully comprehend. So the next practical step could be a philosopher collective, i.e. a group of individuals whose net function equals that of a true philosopher. In that way one can pass or neglect certain ideas without neglecting the main goal of philosophy (which maybe some form of closure).

The social world appears to rely on notions contained in symmetry. It seemingly generates a social scale composed of the dominate and inferior ends. Most weighted social relations appear determined by functions and the individuals with such capacities. Such often appears in the form of competition. Animals perhaps use competition as a means of testing objects. One can only know what one can do by comparing one’s self with other selves. Ethics, however, appears purely cooperative, all semblance of competition is meant to maintain the collective goal of the collective good. The capacity necessary for the application of ethics doesn’t appear in all entities, though ethics must consider some of those individuals still. And it appears intuitive that non-sentient matter is inferior to sentient matter in the domain of ethics.

Ethics perhaps has a net value dictated by the output, which is mostly implicit, of a global feeling scale. Unlike in formal mathematics where positivity and negativity cancel one another, in “ethical math” the net value is negative as long as any sentient being in a socio-ethical context can be consider unreasonably pained. Those whom an intelligent being is aware are on the negative end of the feeling scale are ethical problems. Those on the positive end of the state of being whom can help others are unethical if they neglect to do so. Those who know they can help are perhaps more unethical than those whom are ignorant of their ability. Otherwise those on the negative end must depend on luck or await the expression of some potential ability that can lead to a positive state of being. The practical needs of the world must be reconciled with the needs of ethics. Whereas ethics claims all beings under it are equal, practicality shows that beings aren’t always equal. Although this may perhaps only be due to a cooperative ethical framing

Social inequality comes in the form of networks and functions. One’s first network is perhaps the community. Everyone will not necessarily be guided by their biological parent, but all would be rared by some other. There is thus the generation of a connection which begins a network that is perhaps based on some relation either explicit, i.e. both parties are aware of their relationship, or implicit, i.e. functional relations. Domains are perhaps the network of functional relations as abstract objects. All behaviors appear to be functions, and different functions seem to be related under a single category or domain.

An individual can identify various behavior it performs and list them as its own abilities. If two individuals can perform the same task, then they appear to be equal, e.g. a computer can generate two objects with different qualities (perhaps color) doing the same action. If two individuals can build a house, but one can also aid a broken leg, then the two are equal in building a house but unequal in aiding a broken leg. If the individual that can aid the leg can also aid a poisonous snake bite, while the other individual can also build a boat (which the first individual can not), then they maybe said to have knowledge of the domain of building in one and medicine in the other. Typically many functions are needed before others will accept that one is in a domain, i.e. one must pass a threshold. Inside of the domain individuals are weighed against one another to form an order of some sort, usually hierarchical, and those outside are inferior in the context. The social functional network appears hierarchical and is perhaps expressed in the economic system.

The economic system seems more related to applying a number to objects based on psychological and biological needs and wants rather than physical relations. The price of objects and functions are less constant than the metrics used to calculate physical phenomena. Such maybe due to the fact that we are more sensitive to the form of matter, rather than its mere existence (which maybe a necessity of survival). Since there is no permanent state of comfort, or such a condition is difficult to obtain, one must become skilled at controlling one’s own being in the given context. When one is fully aware of one’s capabilities, one can use such knowledge to one’s advantage in the world. The domain of the first person offers options in the form of bodily movements, such appears subsumed in the domain of cause and effect, or consistency, in and by the world. All domains intersect each other under the domain of existence, albeit they don’t all connect easily. The domain of ethics offers the option of unethical actions by being contained in the domain of existence; existence offering the options of itself and nonexistence. Yet, in the case of ethics one ought to seek virtue, since in this reality it appears to be the only true good.

Society appears to require a large amount of some form of ethical behavior. Vice seems at best useful for the purpose of aesthetics or entertainment. The leaders of each domain typically represent the domain, and serve the purpose of assisting those without such options, by making them aware or performing the action themselves. The human being needs to consume some amount of energy to perform the action of survival. And by implication survival is related to existence. There is no apparent necessity from existence for one to survive other than the possibility for one to exist based on natural processes. Such seems to be the case since the pursuit of existence or nonexistence can be seen as advantageous or disadvantageous depending on one’s mind. At the very least ethics can consider the plight of individuals articulating problems, which infers a negative condition. A philosopher collective perhaps should be aware of the categories of philosophy, if not each particular distinct idea contained within; and ethics is one of these, as no human appears without a social context.