Branches of Metaphysics

In addition to ontology, there are several other traditional branches of metaphysics, including:

1. Cosmology: which is the study of the nature and origin of the universe as a whole, and includes questions about the nature of time, space, causality, and the beginning of the universe.
2. Teleology: which is the study of purpose, design, and goal-directedness in the universe, and includes questions about whether there is a purpose to existence and whether things are moving towards a specific end.
3. Philosophy of mind: which is the study of the nature of the mind and its relation to the body, and includes questions about consciousness, mental states, and the relationship between mental and physical phenomena.
4. Philosophy of science: which is the study of the nature of scientific knowledge, and includes questions about the scientific method, the relationship between theory and observation, and the nature of scientific explanations.
5. Epistemology: which is the study of knowledge, belief, and justification, and includes questions about the nature of truth, the sources of knowledge, and the criteria for justified belief.
6. Axiology: which is the study of value, and includes questions about the nature of ethics, aesthetics, and other normative domains.

These branches of metaphysics all deal with fundamental questions about the nature of the world and our place in it, and are closely interconnected with one another.
There are other branches of metaphysics that are sometimes recognized in addition to the ones mentioned earlier, including:

1. Ontotheology: which is the study of the relationship between ontology and theology, and includes questions about the existence and nature of God or other divine or spiritual entities.
2. Metaphilosophy: which is the study of the nature and methodology of philosophy itself, and includes questions about the aims, methods, and limitations of philosophical inquiry.
3. Metaphysics of modality: which is the study of the nature of possibility and necessity, and includes questions about the relationship between possible worlds, counterfactuals, and the laws of nature.
4. Metaphysics of time: which is the study of the nature of time and temporal existence, and includes questions about the nature of the present moment, the direction of time, and the possibility of time travel.
5. Metaphysics of causation: which is the study of the nature of causation and the relationship between cause and effect, and includes questions about the role of causation in scientific explanation and our understanding of the world.
6. Metaphysics of free will: which is the study of the nature of human agency, and includes questions about the relationship between free will and determinism, the existence of moral responsibility, and the nature of intentional action.
7. Metaphysics of properties: which is the study of the nature of properties and their role in ontology, and includes questions about the relationship between properties and objects, the nature of causal powers, and the existence of emergent properties.
8. Metaphysics of identity: which is the study of the nature of identity and the conditions under which two things can be said to be identical, and includes questions about the relationship between identity and change, the nature of personal identity, and the problem of the ship of Theseus.
9. Metaphysics of possibility: which is the study of the nature of possibility and the relationship between the possible and the actual, and includes questions about the ontological status of possible worlds, the nature of counterfactuals, and the relationship between possibility and necessity.
10. Metaphysics of mind-body problem: which is the study of the nature of the relationship between the mind and the body, and includes questions about the nature of consciousness, the relationship between mental states and brain states, and the possibility of mental causation.
11. Metaphysics of universals: which is the study of the nature of abstract entities such as properties, relations, and concepts, and includes questions about the relationship between universals and particulars, the existence of abstract entities, and the problem of universals.
12. Metaphysics of mathematics: which is the study of the nature and ontology of mathematical objects, and includes questions about the existence of abstract mathematical entities, the relationship between mathematics and physical reality, and the nature of mathematical truth.
13. Metaphysics of language: which is the study of the relationship between language and reality, and includes questions about the nature of meaning, reference, and truth in language, as well as the relationship between language and thought.
14. Metaphysics of values: which is the study of the nature of value and moral properties, and includes questions about the nature of goodness, rightness, and moral obligation, as well as the relationship between moral values and other normative properties.
15. Metaphysics of social reality: which is the study of the nature of social entities and their relationship to the physical world, and includes questions about the nature of institutions, laws, and social norms, as well as the relationship between social reality and individual agency.
16. Metaphysics of science fiction: which is a subfield of metaphysics that explores the philosophical questions raised by works of science fiction, including questions about the nature of time travel, artificial intelligence, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life. These are just a few examples of other branches of metaphysics that are sometimes recognized. Each branch of metaphysics focuses on a particular set of questions and issues within the broader field of metaphysics, and together they provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of reality and our place in it.

A Philosophical Work in Progress X

Once one places value on one's self, one takes on the responsibility of constantly generating one's self. What results is perhaps an interpretation and an agent. One could start by framing the notion to something analogous to the id, an evolving entity. At the bottom the id is a mere chemical process. That the universe could produce such matter doesn't appear unusual, considering the trillions of planets in our galaxy alone, and the incredible power of mathematics. One's biology is one's whole self. We are nothing without our organs.

Once constituted, the id as a practical and actual entity takes on various forms in its biosphere. As an id, i am most aware of and connected to my own id, and i assume other ids are mostly aware of their own ids. The entity one calls "me" or "I," i would consider to be the ego. The ego maybe a more difficult entity to define because it consist of indirect physical objects, nonphysical objects, or mental objects; for one's experiences of one's self is not on display in the same way as one's physical structure, i.e. the id, is. The form of the ego is perceived through time as what the ego thinks, believes, and does in the present and the past. However, there are mental objects that one may not consider as one's own, and mental objects which maybe hidden from the ego.

Social, or harmonious id, behavior i'll call the overego. The overego is controlled by dominate ideas called the superego. The superego is instinct for most animals. For humans, the overego is whatever motion the masses are making. Confusion or disagreement on the superego in groups of individuals produce groups of overegos. Though one may admire the swarm creatures' unity, one may despise its mindless assimilation, i.e. complete control or negation of the ego. The superego, which is one's fundamental knowledge, is different for many egos; and made so simply by a change in where the id was initially generated, what cared for the id till maturity, how the ego developed, and other factors based in time.

A human's own subsistence depends on other humans for a time after birth, this forces human relation and interaction. And since we must imitate others before we gain the ability to invent our own objects/ideas, we also acquire a frame of reference in which we aren't the source. One persisting mental problem is the collective vs. the individual needs. If the ego perceives the collective as the most valuable, it will internalize the culture it is engrossed in. If it values the individual more, it will internalize the ethics implied in its self made philosophy.

One may need to supplement the personality given by the culture with a philosophical/scientific personality, though such may contradict at times. The ultimate rational being would perhaps be computer-like, it would analyze every notion based on mathematics or some other objective and detached standards. A scientific/philosophical mindset should, it seems to me, pursue knowledge for the sake of knowing in and of itself. Since intelligibility, or the intellect, is the main ability that separates humans, or rational animals in general, from other "lower" creatures, efficient thinking should be the main focus of development. Science, i.e. what is most likely the state of affairs, may provide knowledge of the activities that help to improve thinking. Philosophy, i.e. the attempt to know everything, pushes the limits of knowledge by showing its limits. But for most individuals knowledge is a means for obtaining some item for the id, ego, overego, or superego. Whereas I would accept such limits for my own self, it seems immoral to attempt to force others to maintain my mindset, because: 1. others may not be able to run on the exact same logic as me, and 2. forcing a mind into a certain form is psychologically painful. The transformation from a benign personality of a mere observer to the philosophical/scientific personality of an active knower is perhaps painful in of itself.

A Philosophical Work in Progress IX

Individuals accept or attempt to reject characteristics given to them by nature. All objects possess some property which makes them known, I believe. If x were an object with no properties, one could just claim it is contained in the empty set, for even the term “object” wouldn’t apply to it. Language itself doesn’t seem to allow one to express a non-property. Words are either understood or not; and when they are understood, they are typically understood as the role they play in what is being communicated. Thus it would appear that an object must possess a property of some sort to exist. People possess many properties, e.g. potentiality, age, race, thought patterns, culture, income, language, employment, beliefs, physiology, philosophy etc.. Some properties are perceived as companions, while others are seen as enemies.

To identify with particular aspects of one’s self is reasonable. But perhaps one shouldn’t be too intimate with accidental, unintentional qualities, which any quality not obtained by the will appears to be; albeit even extreme possession of one’s own will is a limit to one’s self by applying value inaccurately. An obvious example of accidental qualities is gene inheritance, no one decides beforehand what genes they get, we all simply make use of what we are given. No one can choose their fundamental physical structure, for one would first need to know about the world and one’s self in order to know what qualities are desirable. Such would require that one exist before coming into existence, or that one should possess knowledge of existence before having come into existence. All beings seem to rely on beings in existence to generate their existence or bring them into existence. This condition, which is perhaps cause and effect or something similar, has many forms. This constant generation appears to constantly change while still maintaining somethings constant/unchanging. Thus we come into existence in this biological condition which has evolved/changed over time, where one’s beginnings depends on others. And as one can not split off one’s self into multiple beings of a single consciousness, one can only choose one path, though one may perceive many. “What is the rational course of action?”, seems to be a reasonable question; and though the imposition of rationality appears to limit freedom, any forced denial of its use seem just as oppressive.

Perhaps this is all an attempt to escape bias, obtain a broader worldview, and a more efficient way of thinking. For the most reasonable way of thinking would be to think like God, or any being with efficient thinking. Science can help to fill in more than half of one’s epistemology; though most of science is the work of history and random curiosities. The simplest expression of epistemology is perhaps logic, which establishes the notion of having a notion and deciding to accept of reject notions or ideas. Ethics requires a solemn look into situations. Yet the real ethical dilemmas and examples one perceives (pass rape and murder) are almost comical, if there effects didn’t cause such distress. Biologically, all we do is perhaps for sex, psychologically it is all to escape pain, but these are “simple” pursuits. Philosophy seems to encompass everything. Adherence to any particular notion/idea is a denial of many others, one should perhaps show caution for what one excludes.

So what is really being done in the action of communication? The mere appearance of one’s self to another gives away information of the self, actions and words seem to add information one could not have known with just the mere appearance of the self. Such information usually consist of the self’s physical, psychological, and chronological condition/ing.

Understanding and responding to the actions of others is always possible, in that our domain of physics will always produce an outcome, i.e. reality has a limit to its possibilities. This existence, however, must be an error if no God or perfection exist, but I can’t say for certain that such things don’t exist, or rather I can’t supply sufficient proof that they don’t exist. Philosophy, which is everything, should allow one to contain all possibilities, both the existence and nonexistence of perfection or God and their implications on the world and self.

One can not merely reflect on one’s self to know one’s self, but one must also observe and reflect on the world. One may continue such a process until one is satisfied with the results, such is typical for those biological beings whom know their next move. To reflect constantly on everything is perhaps the curse of a philosopher. Maybe one can choose when to be satisfied and when not to be, or whether such a notion even matters, for such is somewhat derived from the biological entity. To identify one’s self with any particular being is limiting, even if one list every particular factor of one’s self, for perhaps it is the unlisted, unable to be listed, or resilient to being listed items which truly define the self

Passive morals seem quite clear to most individuals, e.g. don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape are simple propositions to understand, in that when one knows the action, one knows what to negate or simply not do. If one wishes to know why such rules are in place, one must question the source of the rule. Active morality are actions one should perform or ought to perform. These appear to cause more harm in the world because it appears to force the self to act in an indignant way. These and other sorts of ideas which come from various minds are intimately connected with the psychology of the mind it is contained in to the point that neglecting the ideas are mentally painful.

The mind maybe able to accept any notion in theory, but the contrary maybe the case when it comes to application, as one must go beyond imagination and vague thinking. Any moment of one’s self is the best simplification of all the current knowledge available to consciousness. Though we are all prone to error, there’s an idea which we hold as fundamental and it differs from being to being. Ethics seems to require that all individuals follow the same law, but such limits freedom. How much control does one have in choosing one’s limits? Should one give one’s self to a notion of what the self thinks is good?

PWIP XXXIV

Any sense appears able to perceive patterns, for a pattern can be any sequence or repetition of actions or objects. In that way all senses can be used to conclude something like numbers, given sufficient mechanical capacities that go further than mere observation. The senses can differentiate between absence and something, or 0 and 1. The counting numbers are abstractions of the multiplicity of objects, which one can come to merely from 0 and 1 being two objects and so on, though such an intellectual feat may require high intelligence to come to with minimal prior knowledge. Aside from the abstract form of multiplicity, which is the natural numbers, there is the abstract ideal shapes. The abstraction of raw data, typically rigid objects, to apparent ideal forms, i.e. the mathematical expression of physical objects, appears to require even more knowledge and understanding, which may only be achieved through feedback on already achieved understandings.

The seemingly faint background mental processes are one’s means of functioning in a manner more sophisticated than mere sensory observation. Perhaps one can call such a thing the active observer. The senses with no subjectivity are perhaps passive observers, i.e. reactions and imitations of external environments. An organism at rest doesn’t decide what it is or will sense beyond how it is positioned in the world. A change in position of the observer by the observer is an active observation. As observation is likely layered, the local external environment can only be perceived by the passive observer, which is a mere receiver and reactor to the state of the external environment. Taking what the observer receives and providing feedback or manipulating it is a part of the internal environment, or virtual world, of the organism and is an active observation. The ability to change position in the environment intentionally appears to require the observer hold the external environment as constant in the memory, then it must plot or plan a destination, updating from the passive observer while following the path generated by the active observer to reach the destination. As the passive observation must remain active, the active observation likely remains in the background of the passive observation interface.

The senses appear to be one’s only connection to reality. Even if objects exist in the same space as the perceiver in reality, it is as good as nothing if it can not impress upon some sense. The abstract abilities of an organisms, i.e. the actions of the active observer, appears in a sense to be concealed information in the environment when considering the external environment as a purely physical process, i.e. as a moving set of points. The knowledge in the self is less than that in the environment because the self is locally present, whereas the environment is omnipresent. Sensations as reactions to some external object appear to be an interaction between two objects. Thus, to be may be to be perceivable, even if not perceived. There are higher functions to sensation that one may find in brains and AI. The set of higher functions appear to be larger than the set of sensations. Simple to more complex brains and AI sense something, assuming they are active. Aside from sensations they may have the ability to recall, apprehend/understand, identify, imagine, decide, judge, conceptualize, categorize, attend, reason, calculate, use language, evaluate, classify, problem solve, ideate, associate, rationalize/irrationalize, plan, erroneously think, act, control self, adapt, attach, valuate, learn, inquire, empathize, prioritize, generalize, interpret, manipulate, etc. all of which are context, i.e. space and time, dependent. These may all be subsumed under cognition.

It is difficult to determine which process of cognition is most vital. Memory seems to be used most often. But only artificial intelligence can recreate exact replicas of visual and audio content. Natural intelligence likely uses the imagination to recreate a memory, which isn’t the exact experience. For the memory to be related to an actual event, one likely needs to use some kind of reasoning that uses the notion or process of consistency. The complete explicit expression of all the various forms of brain configurations and what they do may explain the large variety in story telling.

Psychology and epistemology are very closely related, though epistemology contains more content than the psychology. As pure materialism, ontology/existence would be what science has determined is nature. It would perhaps be the body to Descartes’ body and mind duality. There is a question as to whether the body is the final form of one’s being, or whether the body perceives the actual world or a deception? Science, of course, assents to the question begging truth of the body actually existing in the world, yet denies a simplification of the various processes and phenomena in the world. It intersects, but is different from, the view of the world from one’s own perspective; which is psychology. By rejecting the notion of the brain having complete knowledge one can push the limits of one’s understanding. Such is achievable in the virtual space of one’s mind. We can perhaps look at the spectrum of intelligence as the simple brain, the human brain and A.I. Understanding is perhaps a coherence between the virtual world of the mind and the physical world of the body.

PWIP XXXIII

The senses align well with the model of reality. Dogma typically begins with knowledge, but philosophy starts with ignorance. One can imagine the search for knowledge as one being in a room. One’s experience of the room would depend on which sense one uses to search it. Ontology seems related to the sense of smell. This is founded on the animal’s ability to sense objects that are not in sight. The smell of an object is perhaps more telling of the object’s composition than its image. The olfactory system, however, only ever gets the hint of the object, not the object itself, unless the object is a smell. Sight is more related to epistemology. It maybe the second most concrete sense, second to touch, and can obtain a pinpoint perception of what is in the immediate vicinity. Such is dependent on light, similar to how the olfactory sense is based on particles in the air. An image of an object seems to allow for quicker discovery of what the room would hold, assuming there is a source of light. Of course, the experience of pleasure and pain, which is a tactile sense, brings one to ethics. Though pure touch seems binary, e.g. hot or cold, hard or soft, it appears to be the most significant sense. The conscious mind is aware of the animal’s condition through emotions, which appear tactile in nature. Taste seems more closely related to one’s aesthetic self, as it merely communicates what one finds most appealing, not what is most efficient. It is also more closely connected with one’s intimate self, as animals are more willing to touch an object, than to taste it; or rather they touch more objects than they may put on their tongues. Thus ethics would be more closely related with the sense of touch and psychology with the sense of taste. Sight and smell appear to be extended senses, as they can perceive objects a distance away from the body. The last extended sense is the sense of hearing. The audio sense is more spherical than vision, which is rather linear. Hearing is rather communal, as it relates to sociology, since at least half of human communication is audio. Like smell, sound is rather abstract, but unlike smell, it is also rather brief. Ultimately all perceptions seem to be hints from which to reason about the world, rather than explicit expressions of the overall process. It is quite difficult to believe truth is somehow outside of experience, and not buried somewhere within.

PWIP XXXII

This venn diagram is an attempt at a sufficient model for the apparent reality. Ontology is similar to the universal set, in that it is the set that contains all sets. Contained in the ontology is the set epistemology. Epistemology contains the subset sociology, which contains psychology, which itself contains ethics. Epistemology is perhaps bounded ontology, as it appears to be the set of universal and leading ideas.

The sets can’t really be perceived as separate from one another. If the world is merely the world and nothing else, then epistemology is a stable domain, and ontology extends only to impossibilities. What is and is not appears to exhaust the notion of existence, though not much information about what is is given. Ontology is more difficult to discuss because it is supreme universality. When one uses notions such as all, existence, everything, metaphysics or god one is referring to ontology. However, since such notions alone express little discrete information, they are usually found bounded to some other thing. One appears to enter epistemology at the limit of understanding.

Unlike a typical venn diagram, the lines that delineate the sets from one another are also relevant objects. Philosophy separates ontology and epistemology. Science separates epistemology and sociology, as any single human is perhaps too limited to obtain universal notions without others. Language separates sociology and psychology, as communication is the medium for ideas. And aesthetics delineates psychology and ethics, since emotions conflict with morals. Often one may find that the moral obligation may conflict with one’s positive sensibilities. What is truly good ethically is a mix of scientific efficiency, social justice, and personal desire, social justice being the universal fulfillment of reasonable aesthetic desires.

Psychology is a single point-of-view of ontology. Sociology is a collection of such points-of-view. The path of society appears manifested by the interactions of the collective sense. Perhaps the collective sense is the people and machines that observe the environment and exchange information. Ethics considers the biosphere in its entirety and what it should do, assuming it can intentionally do anything as a unit. If ethics does not exist, then perhaps the next best system to determine collective behavior is economics. The difficulty of survival necessitates complex motions, but not pure chaos; a mix that is difficult for linear thinking beings. The weighted judgment, hierarchy of skill, and distribution of labor and reward are just a few properties needed by the group that are provided by an economic system. Ultimately it is the individual’s interactions with the environment (changing the environment) that determines the outcome (the current configuration of the environment).

Perhaps the most interesting sets are ethics and sociology. Sociology and psychology appear rather concrete, as most individuals believe their selves to be a real existing thing. The belief of self existence comes from the locality of thought and feeling, as well as the physical appearance of the body. The physical appearance is also perceived in others, as well as their effect on the self, which makes them appear concrete. Ethics and epistemology appear abstract as they consider universal notions, rather than only the local appearances. Ethics considers the dynamics between each individual psychology. These dynamics seem to change based on needs, wants, skills, character, and possibility.

A Philosophical Work in Progress VIII

One may be able to claim that the consciousness/mind/manual mode is bounded to the body/subconsciousness/automatic mode of this particular being. But there appears to be a kind of freedom for the body from whatever principle governs matter. For Newton stated that an object in motion or rest will stay as such unless acted upon by an external force, I believe. Biological beings move without any apparent external force acting upon them. This is freedom from physics in a sense, but the body itself makes the limit of that freedom known by use of pain it seems.

The body is not outside of physics. It is the awareness of itself, i.e. a point’s ability to choose when to stop/go and its direction based on some rules perhaps, that frees it from inertia. However, being that a being can not merely stop being a being, the body is constantly being bombarded by forces; it itself is an amalgamation of forces. Thus, in a sense, the body is not free to stop, since stopping is death and decay. So it seems the body seeks solace in the mind which seeks solace in certain aspects of the world. I would perhaps say i seek my own solace in philosophy, but that conscious claim is merely one part of my subconscious.

Perhaps the body intends to keep the mind bounded to this place. Because there’s someplace better, worst, or nothingness beyond existence, one that exist can not be sure. Though the consciousness controls the body, it doesn’t control every part of the body. I can’t directly turn off and on my heartbeat, visual system, audio system etc.; it can only be done indirectly, e.g. through blinking, covering one’s ears, perhaps one can speed up and slow down one’s heartbeat. One can not directly perceive how the brain motion, i.e. neurons, translate into mental actions, at least not in a “the brain is telling the mind everything the body is doing and why it is doing it by means of a social language.” The subconsciousness, i.e. some system that runs in the background of consciousness, seems necessary for the body to function without the apparent feeling of constant labor on the consciousness. But it is not only that I feel no labor from some action, I also feel no control. Consciousness still feels any stress on systems it doesn’t have the power to freely manipulate.

Though the mind contains all the information one has interacted with up till now, the conscious only has access to whatever it needs and can get access to at a given time. The subconscious seems to process the bodies condition and stored information, which is a lot of information given the bodies chemical structure and constant operation, and simplifies it into a consciousness, it seems. The automatic aspect of the mind is perhaps constantly adding and changing data, while the manual mind merely changes and selects data. For no one adds anything new to the world, rather we all bring existing objects together. What a mind chooses to do depends on what it believes is possible in the world, and what it believes depends on how it interprets the information it receives. If the consciousness is a simplification of the subconsciousness, how does the subconsciousness decide what information is most significant? Perhaps the subconsciousness uses hierarchical categorization for notions, which could be a result of placing one’s attractions higher than one’s repulsions.

Philosophy for itself appears to contradict philosophy for the good and virtuous, in that one must possess preferences for the world to be a particular way, which appears to conflict knowing the world qua world. Such may only be the mark of the mind as a mere observer of the world, in contrast to the mind as a particular participant in it; or simply put, one’s perceived philosophical place in existence. For whether the mind is free and thus has the dilemma of what to do with freedom, or it is destine but unable to perceive the future, there seems to be a negative feeling associated with attaching necessity to choose. Ethically a least action principle is perhaps the best option if one does not possess certainty in action, but aesthetically something analogous to minimalism is perhaps the least appealing or interesting, minimalism being whatever nothingness would appear to be.

Pwip XXXI

Ethics doesn’t necessarily coerce one to accept the seemingly necessary conditions of moral living. I imagine the emotional contradictions ethics would maintain as an explicit form would be as followed. It would be positively affected when one is happy to follow the imperative; and negatively affected when one dislikes one’s lot. There is no actual force ethics can apply on the self beyond the physics or beings aware of its existence. And the existence of a true rational moral is determined by domains and the existence of professionals. One may perhaps consider the various relations that manifest themselves in each domain as politics. Various connections generate a number of layers in a hierarchy; and rules aren’t always explicit, much less strategies. And immoral individuals aren’t against taking advantage of the lack of explicity in ethics.

Though metaphysics and ethics are related, and a lack of science can be replaced with a metaphysical knowledge base, their collaboration can lead to harm. The problem is metaphysics (particularly non-scientific metaphysics) is highly speculative, while ethics becomes less nebulous as one interacts with the world and learns one’s own traits. Metaphysics starts at science’s boundary, which could also be the boundary of one’s knowledge; or it is one’s whole view of the world. The ability to be kind and empathetic is an ability of high level brain function, which can be studied by science. The law shouldn’t appeal to metaphysical notions for ethical reasoning, because the nature of metaphysics is curious, and not certain. Ethics may appear metaphysical because it maintains philosophical and dynamic dilemmas that aren’t simple to solve without passing some knowledge threshold.

Many ethical conflicts are based on the subjectivity not wanting to give control to the objective ethics, as true ethics may find the power unjustified and take it. Yet, proof of an ethical principle is no simply matter, as it requires correct reasoning in one’s self and the ability to bring others to that reasoning. A strategy to avoid the objective ethics could be to understand the ethical reasoning and know its correct, yet still reject its rule on psychological grounds, where one may not follow the rule because they lack the motive or ability to deny their own nature which maybe innately unethical. Physics will not stop the body’s actions that obey its laws, its laws intersecting and completely being separate from the laws of ethics.

Typical use of metaphysics in ethics is religion or theology, where individuals apply aesthetic reasoning to existence in general and ethics in particular. Religions have various properties, one is they all seem to possess the essential values for life. The aesthetic reasoning is easier to comprehend than science as a whole. Individuals naturally come to words, books, and a narrative. These things are natural for humans, but metaphysical skepticism and awkwardness appears more philosophically appropriate. Religion presents individuals with explicit ethical rules and ontological truths, completing the individual’s epistemology. Logic seemingly necessitates negation as a part of the completion of its proof, paradoxically achieving completeness through incompleteness. Metaphysical certainty is more difficult than practical certainty because there’s no constant reaffirmation by something like the present moment or the strongest feeling/sense.

The minds relation to the world and the others may manifest different identities, as the addition or negation of an object or individual changes the boundaries of actions. Considering the conditions and limitations of the planet and abilities of others, one may also consider one’s boundaries. Metaphysics is utilized in the absolute past or absolute future, assuming such things exist. The not so far future and the far future appear to have probabilities based on one’s information set. The temporally present world maintains a balance similar to a mathematical equation. But as the expression of anything must come in an aesthetic form, art appears also necessary. It maybe a question as to which expressions are best? But as long as truth can be expressed in the language, the arbitrariness of the language may not matter.

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.

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?

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.

Thinking of Aristotle's Thoughts

If I follow the logic principles which Aristotle suggested, I find it quite easy to perceive the universe having an actual existence, perhaps too easy, which is where doubt sets in and the problems begin. Simply put, the laws of logic proposed by Aristotle are as followed. The first principle Aristotle proposed is the law of identity, meaning whatever is, is itself. We may not know exactly, in great detail, what an object is, but our knowledge of any object must yield to what that particular object actually is. It is the basic definition of a falsehood to claim an object to be whatever we maintain it in our minds to be, without any justification or evidence whatsoever as to what an object is in itself. The second principle is the law of non-contradiction, which basically states that no object can both be and not be in the same space at the same time. This principle is logic’s most basic guard against absurdity, in my opinion, as we may imagine an object flickering in and out of existence in our minds, but can not say the object is maintaining an existence that both is existence and is not existence at the same time in the same space. The final principle is the law of excluded middle, which basically means all knowledge should be pushed to its utmost limit. When defining what a man is, we should include every single characteristic that makes up a man, in particular or in general(which is just another characteristic of that particular piece of knowledge). As every piece of knowledge is of something, the law of excluded middle needs only two objects, that which knows of a thing and the thing known, knowledge is a correlation between the actual object and the notion of the object in the knower’s mind. But, it seems impossible for there not to be a middle point, as we know of objects through our senses, and understand their significance through the use of language or mental images.

These principles are said to be the laws of thought, but whether they pertain only to thought, or to reality itself, seems to me to be a trivial matter, as I can not think past my own thoughts. Is it possible to know anything without it passing through one’s thoughts? Even our subconscious presents itself to us from time to time, in dreams or moments of enlightenment. All knowledge must be that of actual objects, or ideas in one’s mind.

These laws have left me with this argument concerning the universe, or the extent as to what our minds are able to comprehend.

1. Non-existence can not exist.

2. Non-existence contradicts existence.

3. Everything in existence, and everything in our minds, existence in some space at some time.

4. Non-existence doesn’t existence in any space nor in any time.

5. Therefore non-existence can not exist.

In my mind there could never be such a object or presence as absolute nothing. A thing may be able to not exist in a certain place or in a certain time, but there is something in every point of existence. I think people throw the term “nothing” around very often, and it does serve a utility, but we should never us the term “nothing” when speaking general and intelligibly about the universe, where it is impossible that nothing should ever exist in its absolute form(complete non-existence).

(Footnotes: These thoughts are definitely in need of more evidence and more proofs. But as far as logic is concerned, I perceive such principles to be a adequate start.)

Categories of Existence IV

The fifth category of existence is time. Time is the structure of motion. Being actual objects in space, we are all subject to time, but due to a time dilation, we do not know what actual time is. The dilation may come from being a conscious being coming into existence, because an environment must exist prior to the existence of a conscious being, resulting in time dilation between objects in space and space itself. There is also the problem of seeing all events from a single perspective because each conscious being is quantified as a single observer. Each observer perceives motion from different positions in space, but no two observes can occupy the same position in space at the same time, since they are not existentially the same objects. In any case, the primary reality all objects in space are contained in is existence, therefore all objects are the result of the first motion that existed in space. From this we can conceive of a real beginning of time for all objects in space. Though no being can know for certain what the first motion of existence was, we can perceive a continuous motion in phenomena using the laws of cause and effect, the main premise being that all causes are prior to effects. However, this only concerns real objects, therefore real time concerns motions of objects and phenomena that are results of an unknown first cause or first motion in existence, I call this time real time.

Real time isn’t an idea or concept, it is the current state of existence, a constant alteration of forces throughout space. Real objects exist in nature and are known by their harmonious interactions, harmonious in the sense that no object defies the laws of physics. Limitations provided, all objects thus become connected in space and, while remaining separate objects, maintain one motion from cause to effect. Real time is the connections of motions operating in sequences, every motion is necessarily followed by or prior to another motion. Connection between objects and motions occur because of locality, mainly no object can go out of existence; objects can only move in existence or alter their current existential states, meaning all objects are interacting in the same space. This connection between objects in real time, because of their connection in the same space, leads to a more practical time for conscious beings, a time that is started from particular points in existence, a division of real time into parts known as relative time.

The more typical time we refer to is relative time, which are motions following that of the first motion. Actual time, first motion to current motions in existence, can not be known without tracing all real objects causes back to a prime motion. As this is virtually impossible, because an effect can be the cause of another effect but not the cause of its own cause, there’s no way to realistically go back to the first motion. Therefore, an observers beginning of time, as a quantity and motion, is where the observer’s first reference of observation began, or where the object which is being observed first entered perception, leading to whatever the current structure of motions are.

(Footnote: It is not difficult to understand what time is if space and motion are understood. Time is the ever flow of motion and interacting forces. This is also a more metaphysical view of time rather than a measurable view that clocks refer to. Measurable time is relative time as depicted by an observer. There maybe no way to prove an actual measurable point in time to have a real time clock. It would require a model of the beginning motions which occurred in existence leading to current motions, such a task would require a large amount of proof and calculation. And the motions that first took place in existence must have cosmological or particle physics origins, assuming the forces necessary must have been to an extremity in nature.)

Objects in Space

Upon some reflective thinking it became obvious to me that no object or phenomena has the ability to exist without relation to another object or phenomena. Solitary existences can’t be a possible occurrence. For everything that exist, or that has the potential to exist, must exist in the domain of existence. However, existence itself must be given form and dimension by the objects which exist, therefore existence must be a feature related to all objects and phenomena. How exactly can all objects be related to each other?

All things are related in time and space, practically speaking. For all real objects are immersed in space, this seems obvious in the fact that no object or phenomena can be created from nothing. For any object to come into existence a combination of objects or entropy of an object are needed. This seems to be a consequence of merely existing and impossible to withstand. Objects come together in “time,” the sequence of motions in a phenomena, for phenomena are dynamic. This is important to realize when speaking of beings, for all beings must come into existence through a process in time.

All objects being in necessity of other objects for their coming into being would mean all objects must come from or be apart of an antecedent object or phenomena. Take A as the main substance of space, since space is either unbounded or bounded, and can only exist in reference to an object; an object must be a kernel in space, because space with no object is a form of non-existence. Now, space as such will engulf substance A, also substance A must exist in time. Substance A can only be perceived through some change in the mental affairs of an observer; and only as “in time” if substance A produces direct effects to its surrounding. Such a case would conclude in substance A producing substance B, this occurring in time, assuming substance A is going through some sort of process in space; this process being some alteration in substance A. Substance B, being produced by substance A, would be related to substance A in space and time; this meaning the only thing separating substance A and substance B is distance and motion, motion being whether they are moving away or towards each other in time. Such is the way objects are related to each other in space and time.

(Footnote: I would guess substance B would be a smaller or “anti” version of substance A. I assume this only because all change must be a significant alteration, and the only significant alteration to a singularity is its polar opposite; in this case substance B is the polar opposite of the singularity substance A)

Categories of Existence III

Every phenomena an observer perceives is a single Space in itself(It maybe best to refer to Space as a system composed of elements, since we will be speaking of properties, a category of existence). The observer is also a phenomena, thus is also a single Space(or System, assuming the observer is able to do more than merely perceiving) in itself. Two Spaces need Motion to co-exist; regardless of if it is one phenomena(System) containing 2 Spaces, or one phenomena changing from one form to another. Every phenomena is in need of Motion, and form itself is known by Motion(For senses are needed to observe a phenomena, and to be apart of one. In this way the term “senses” is used more generally, it is the ability to generate force. We generate biological forces to perceive and interact with the world, whereas particles use weak forces, strong forces, and electromagnetic forces to interact. Planets, stars, black holes, etc. seem to use the force of gravity to interact. We sense matter through force, the force of light on our eyes allow us to see, the relative force of our molecular structure compared to the molecular structure of a wall is what determines the limits of motion; i.e. a person punching through a thin wall compared with a thick wall stopping the punch).

(Footnote: Properties are especially necessary in opposites, contraries, and contradictions; for these concepts necessitate dualities. Examples: long/short, true/false, existence/non-existence, young/old, whole/part, virtue/vice, zero/one, one/two, good/bad, straight/curved, etc. They are objects which are elements of a common system)

Properties are the elements of a system. I’ll use a very rough form of geometric space and logic to demonstrate my meaning. We would have to first begin by defining null space, or space with nothing in it, this we can represent with the element 0, lets give it a sense of a flat plane(represented with element p) and the color black(represented with element b). This would give the null space elements (p(b(0))), and this being one system we can call it S1. Within S1 we can create 2 more null spaces(00) on top of S1, then give them the senses of the color white(w) and the bounded figure circle(c). Placed (w(c(00))) anywhere in S1, and we can say S1 contains 2wc, or wc wc. The combined spaces would be 2wc(S1) making it a single system containing the properties of 2wc and S1, and elements pbwwcc000. It is just an arbitrary logic form that I’m using to illustrate the way in which properties and elements are, or can, be used. This is an example of the vastness of properties, such a vastness can’t be expressed in it’s fullest sense because senses themselves require properties and elements to exist. There would be too many elements to name in a single property of a major system(assuming all properties are from a metaphysical system containing words(properties) and their meanings(elements) being words defined by other words).

(Footnote: The null space(0) was meant to show the quantity of spaces used, for each system needs space to operate. Properties are the parts of a system, they are the origin of force in a system.)

The innate characteristics of a phenomena is what i call properties. Such a thing is somewhat difficult to explain, for every Space contains properties, and properties are in every Space. So defining what properties are, while still using properties, contains no depth. Perhaps another model will clarify the way properties are utilize. Take the proposition “A line is connected by two points.” This proposition is the illustration of a phenomena(or it can be consider a system), its a completed single Space. But the single Space contains innate characteristics, the two points and their connection to form a line. The completed Space is the line, but the line is created or can only exist by containing within it certain properties, these properties being two points(2 Spaces) and their connection to each other(1 Force); the points are elements of the system, the line created by the 2 points is the property of the system. Hence, “A line is connected by two points” is the system, the sense of the system is a line(property), created by means of 2 points(elements). The line could of been created by 10 bricks, that sense would be a brick line, with the elements of 10 bricks

Properties can be seen as the parts of a being, for every being is made of parts. Properties, or parts, are rather broad reaching and can be a trivial thing to consider. For if everything is a whole, then the whole is complete because of its many parts. Only nothing, pure non-existence can be defined as not having parts, if it is consider as a whole. But even nothing is related to everything and something, thus being apart of and a part of a system. Anyone who would inquire into the properties of everything may find themselves in a very difficult situation. When considering the properties of anything, one must consider every possible element combination. And every part of the totality of things is connected simply from being the properties of existence itself.

When we think about Properties, we can begin by thinking of necessity. What is necessary for such and such phenomena to exist, or what details do i perceive as an observer of such and such a phenomena? Our mode of communication is the expressing of properties, it is metaphysical. For every observer is a Space in themselves, and by being a single phenomena innately, has a particular point of view. The point of view is a property of an observer. We communicate our different points of view with one another through properties of a medium, such as the use of language or other expressions of meaning. Also, there must be a Space outside an observer with its own Properties for an observer to communicate with another being. If the only Space that exist is that of a single observer, then that observer must come out of itself to communicate with another. An observer that communicates with him/her self is merely utilizing his/her own innate properties; such as force to change his/her own Space, i.e. reflection, thought, imagination.

(Footnote: Language is a medium of communication. Every word is forced upon the object which it symbolizes, but the word itself is the property of the language. The correct way in which to use the symbols of a language is produced by the formal rules of the language itself. This, I find to be important, for most seem to take language for granted and assume its a normal thing. Language is nothing more than the Motion of sound waves produced by vocal chords; different sounds made in particular sequences to express meaning. The things that words symbolize aren’t the things in themselves but rather the idea of the things, they are metaphysical entities. A car is named a car because it is unable to name itself, and because it is necessary to identify the car as a single system, as a car qua car. A car qua car is still apart of another whole, and a whole composed of parts itself. But if we didn’t give car qua car its own Space and consider it a single phenomena(a single system), we may end up speaking ad infinitum. For, if starting the conversation on car qua car, we separate car from its parts and couldn’t tell the whole system from its properties, we would end up speaking about all things related to car, and thus speak about everything and infinite. A rather absurd consequence considering our imperfect knowledge.)

The precise structure of properties and their elements are determined by time.