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.

Pwip XXX

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

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

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

A Philosophical Work in Progress VII

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pwip XXIX

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

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

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

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

A Philosophical Work in Progress VI

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

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

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

A Philosophical Work in Progress V

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

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

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