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.

A Perspective on Life

We perceive life as individuals by taking part in an universal experience from different positions in space, causing differences in perspective. These different perspectives cause conflicts and contradictions in our definition of the truth, i.e. the actual motion of the parts that compose the universe. The correct perspective to maintain is that which accurately describes the motion of the universe’s parts. However, due to physical and practical limitations, we must condense explanations to only relay significant information, or what we arbitrarily consider significant information. The substance of truth is usually lost when it is separated from the whole truth. And as the whole truth requires describing all events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur, it is impossible to know. Granted our situation, we do not need to know every detail of the universe, only what is necessary. What is necessity or necessary is another question for a later time.

Personal beliefs are dependent on the nature of a particular perspective. The mind’s cognitive capabilities are not unlimited. We are able to focus on one matter at a time. For, to perform an action accurately and quickly, the whole course of motion must be seen as a single movement. But, since the process of actualizing an idea or goal requires forethought(granted we are speaking of a rational being actualizing an idea or goal), we can only think of known phenomena, and adapt ourselves to any anomalies. This causes a disharmony in the mind, because the mind must stop its initial mental movement, that which formulated a plan of action, to mend external disunity(i.e. disunity of the mental perception of the world and the world as it is in of itself). For an anomaly is just an unconsidered event. All anomalies than become known phenomena and are assimilated to known knowledge when they occur. But, dealing with them at the time of the occurrence requires we divert our attention from our main goal to a novel problem.

More Thoughts on Free-Will

We ought to live our lives according to reason, which is a limit on the will, yet a necessary one. Everything in existence operates and persist through reason. I’m not saying every object comes into being for a reason (I’m not promoting a god), but for the most part, every object must abide by universal laws, and this is a limit on what we call the will, and on the possible actions in which the will can actualize. Will is the act or process of using or asserting one’s choice; volition. But we all know that there are limited options for us which to choose from. I can not fly to the sun and walk on it simply because I will it. The desire to act is not alone sufficient enough for an action. The ability to perform the action which we desire, materials which to act on, and a space which to act in are all necessary components of any option the will contemplates. We can only do what is rational and logic. No one can square a circle because it is an illogical action, therefore impossible; and even if it becomes possible to do so, there must be a reason and logic process for it having the capacity to be a possible object.

We also know every action demands a reaction and a cause, does free-will not necessitate this principle? It is impossible to kill a man, but by the free-will of either the killer or the victim to not want the outcome to be death, not have the man die. No freedom is unrestrained freedom, it is all based on qualifiers and contingencies. If you are living under a government, then you can bet your freedom is limited by law. If you are not living under a government, but are alive, then you are still not absolutely free, as the body necessitates that you obtain certain materials (air, food, water, sleep) to continue your living state. People say “god is good” which means it doesn’t have the option to be evil, which is a limitation on this being’s power and free-will. Our ignorance of the future forces us to make uncertain decisions, resulting in consequences not always desired by the will, again limiting the will’s freedom and spoiling its intended results. And if we knew the future perfectly, then we would have no will, for the future would be absolute and decided, the only choice the will would have is the determined performance which the future dictates.

We do have a will which can make a particular choice out of a set of options. But, this will is not free, as the options are not unlimited, making the choices limited. I think the confusion is due to equating the will with desire, instead of equating the will with reason. Our desires are many and nearly limitless, but our reason is founded on knowledge obtained; reason bases its determinations on the role we play in the world and the limits our actions possess, rather than on our desires and ultimate wants, for even these must subject themselves to reason to be obtained (for no one has wants without a reason for wanting what they desire).

Imagine that the will of A can choose from one to an infinite amount of options. A can only choose ONE out of infinite choices, for even if A could choose ALL the choices, this should be the destruction of A, as there must be a conflict between, at least, two of the infinite options; because conflict must also be an option in an unlimited set of options. Or imagine the scenario, A has B, C, and D, but not H, I, or J, therefore A can not choose the options which necessitate H, I, or J; this makes the infinite choices limited, not only to one choice, but now to choices which can only be chosen by an A that has B, C, and D; and we don’t even know if there are A’s with only one out of B, C, and D; nor if it would limit the choices of A further. Is there really a logical way to have a will, such as that of A, which is fully and without any restraint free to choose any and all forms of being and action without a single pair contradicting each other? Such a will would need to destroy the operation of negation in logic itself. What kind of world would exist without any negation at all?

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.)

On Evil

“Some art of mensuration is required in order to show us pleasures and pains in their true proportion. This art of mensuration is a kind of knowledge, and knowledge is thus proved once more to be the governing principle of human life, and ignorance the origin of all evil: for no one prefers the less pleasure to the greater, or the greater pain to the less, except from ignorance.” ~Plato

Evil Is normally understood by most people in the context of the biblical representation of badness or wickedness, in other words, evil is equivalent to sin or the devil. This is of course a very vague way of identifying evil, as sin and the devil are not innate representations in the mind. The closes representation we have to identifying or relating to evil is our notions of pain and pleasure, as most people would consider pain, either physical or mental harm, to be the expression or representation of evil. For, other than the Bible’s notion of evil, we have other myths and doctrines that present their own idea of evil, but all lead back to our notion of pain and pleasure.

If life were purely pleasant, i.e. all affections on the brain resulted with pleasure, then there would be no way of identifying evil, wickedness, deficiency, inadequacy, imperfection, harm to the body, degradation, etc. and the like. For instance, if the happening of losing an arm resulted with a pleasant sensation, lets say every animal had a feeling of bliss from what we presently consider as pain, it is impossible, for me at least, to imagine animals not willingly doing harm to themselves for the mere sake of receiving pleasure. Much of a living thing’s actions are dictated by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and even the more intelligent creatures must start with this demeanor. Death itself would be but a joke to all living things without pain, which we perceive it to be the opposite. We would not be able to say that killing another living being was a terrible act without pain; because there would be no discomfort to either the victim nor to anyone who valued the victim’s life, nor any hope of empathy from the murderer. Clearly, whatever moral doctrines are presented to the mind, must find their foundations in the innate mental ideas of pleasure and pain.

Yet, good and evil can not be merely viewed as a pursuit of pleasure(being good) versus an avoidance of pain(being evil). The reason being that other animals do base their actions on a pursuit of pleasure and an avoidance of pain, yet it is only with ourselves that we label certain actions as moral and others as immoral. If a lion kills another lion, it is viewed simply as the actions performed by an animal, but if a man kills another man, it is murder. Now without going too deep into detail, I can only perceive the most significant difference between a lion and a man to be that of intelligence, which was probably not so clear during ancient times, but is undeniably obvious in today’s world, with our clear advances in technology and the unmistakable environment which a man lives in compared to that of other animals. Thus, like Plato, I believe morals and ethics begin and end with knowledge. For it is also clear that other intelligent creatures have some notion of ethical actions, as shown by science.

No one is innately evil, every being is a product of their circumstances, this is a notion i believe is extremely important. It sickens me that many religions would have humans believe that they are not in control of their own actions, they are incapable of performing virtuous actions through their own abilities, and that everyone is evil who does not comply with their particular group. We are born with innate abilities, but not innate intentions, notions, and ideas. No human has shown an inborn disposition to do evil, whom has not also shown a pathological incapacity, which indicates an imperfect and undeveloped mind or brain. However, instead of an opposition to that which is undoubtedly evil, religions manage to put good people in conflict with each other, as the human race is no longer separated into those who can do and those who need help, but into those who comply and those who do not. What is good and evil is quite ambiguous, it is our relations with each other that give these ideas concreteness. Those who put themselves above all others, but not due to more beneficial and efficient notions of the world, rather through dubious and problematic traditions, are committing a great evil.

If a God was the one to dictate universal rules, it should be impossible to break them. This seems to be the case for life in general, that no being can go against the rules dictated by logic; such as the rules that guide physics, biology, and chemistry; though we are still working on these concepts. Actions that are logically impossible can not be performed, no matter how much we wish or will illogical actions to be done. Yet, immoral actions can be performed merely by us willing these actions. Why would we be incapable of performing actions that are logically impossible, when we willfully want to perform them, yet have unenforced laws opposing particular actions that can still be performed regardless, even though no sane person willfully desires immoral actions? If a God exist, it is certainly preventing particularly extraordinary and supernatural actions by force from being actualized, such as a human beings having the ability to move faster than the speed of light using only our legs. If such a divine being is allowing immoral/evil actions to be done, but is punishing those who do it, even though clearly no immoral action is done willingly(because an insufficiency in the mind or circumstances of a creature always leads to an immoral action, but no immoral action is done for the mere end of doing evil itself; it’s always to avoid pain or pursue pleasure), such a being would be completely unreasonable and unjust. I can not believe in a world where an unreasonable ruler reigns over all, especially since science and logic demonstrate a rather justified and principled existence.

On the Existence of Cognition

If there be a thing that is cognitive, in which case I merely mean that that word is seen in many places and widely known, then I would assert that there be two objects that exist from which cognition can be manifested. These two objects are the Personal and the Logical.

The Personal is a manifestation created by physical objects, viz. matter/energy. It is an object that evolved over extended periods of time. For we are something large which was spawned by something small. The core of the developed human is the brain. The brain has various functions, generally speaking the brain organizes information. The result of organized information is Logic.

This piece of information is obtained by the utilization of Logic. Logic is an affirmation of information. The universe is mere information organized in a particular way at any given moment. Humans, being a spontaneity in the universe, and not the universe itself, may never possess the minute knowledge of the Summa Genera. However, one need not know the whole Summa Genera, but only knowledge that is complimentary to one’s own conditions. Logic is the highest point of which this information can go, granted one has information and can communicate it to others.

The brain is not created to know everything in the universe. It is a mechanical object found in a body. The body is spawned by the universe, and the cause of the brain; for all living creatures have bodies, but not all have brains, or at least only humans have high cognitive functionality. Cognitive abilities only allow for a glimpse at the Summa Genera. One must consider ones own limitations when utilizing Logic, for that may become a required response.

On the Mind

“Mind” is that which we consider the model of our world. Many people will describe this in various was. The few manners in which I have heard it described as is; that point from which we observer the world, the self, the ego, me/I, the spirit/soul, consciousness, awareness, life, human, and many other phases. For me, it is an action, or performance, or feeling, or reaction of some kind. It is something i do, something i have or am given or perceive, or know about. It has shown me many things, of which i think about, or contemplate, or make judgments about. That of which i judge or contemplate is the world, the universe, I/me, or God. What then is the problem? If one considers it all one thing, then one need not fall into disputes.

The problem may then be what ought we to do with it? These sets of mechanics, which are used to create, manifest, or actualize certain events, are what we utilized when forming our world model. Each model has its own particular explanation, but one is sufficient enough to continue. Conflict will always occur in the various descriptions of how mind is used exactly; whether it is physical phenomena, chemical reactions, biological manifestations, or psychological entities. And if God be the source of my power, then it only could control, or generate my movements and actions. The question still remains what ought we to do?

Regardless what we are there is a quantitative state to this existence we call the Mind. At the very least there is one thing, or nothing. But, frequently, there is more than one thing, i.e. something else is involved in the manifestation of the Mind. What ought we to do with the mind could depend on a multitude of objects. I describe it as an undeniable force from any object mentioned thus far.

I hope these arrangements of words can be of some practical use, though much contradiction exist amongst them. More or less could be said of this. One could understand the basic idea; the argument would be on particulars beyond this theoretical position.