How may the universe of the subjective relate to the universe of the objective? How may purpose, point of view, and context or frame of reference combine and react in order to allow us to communicate meaningfully about that which is assumed to be (1) indifferently random, (2) appreciably chosen, or (3) physically determined? Is any sequence “really” random, chosen, or physically determined – or do such concepts only convey meaning depending upon purpose, perspective, and context?
Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?
Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.
****
Insofar as bivalent or objective logic does not apply well to moral choices, how may mortals be inspired by arguments to make choices?
An appropriate quote can help tip opinions, as where the authority is on point, well regarded, and not shown to have been mistaken. I doubt people formulate opinions on non-trivial matters such as politics based purely on clear and correct reasoning, free of logical fallacies. Rather, people necessarily tip many moral and political opinions based on arguments that simply cannot be entirely reduced to clear and correct reasoning. One such “fallacy” is the appeal by quoting authority. One may wish to encourage exchanges of thought that go beyond the well ploughed field. But another important function is to help assimilate and invigorate a political movement for helping the country to reassert adult supervision.
****
It would seem nice if we could avoid all logical fallacies and simply repeat correct conservative answers to every issue in different formulations and if we could all adduce and agree upon every correct answer under clear and correct reasoning. Except for rather trivial concerns, I have not seen much of that. Meantime, real people frequently find enough truth value to become sufficiently convinced to make choices under arguments that are filled with logical fallacies. One such fallacy is the argument made by reference to quotes and aphorisms taken from great persons. The thing is, such arguments are often enough to convince or tip an opinion.
....
A MISCELLANY OF MUSINGS: Regarding Kinds and Aspects of Logic, consider: (1) bivalence, (2) trivalence; (1) true, (2) untrue; (1) known and not convertible to unknown, (2) known but convertible to unknown, (3) unknown but knowable, (4) Unknown and unknowable; (1) Subjectively appreciated but uncertainly so; (1) Rock, Scissors, Paper; (1) consciously created; (1) kinds, (2) degrees; (1) subjective, (2) objective, (3) ambiguous, (4) dependent, (5) contextual, (1) random, (2) chosen, (3) determined, (4) overlapping; (1) parts, (2) sum of parts, (3) whole; (1) phase shifting, (2) metamorphic, (3) transcendent, (4) meta logical; etc.
Consider a perspective of sensation based on an effect of pushing a kind along a scale. Consider transitioning from degree to kind. Imagine or model a form like a hot air balloon, skeletoned with 3 lines: (1) That which presently senses; (2) that which is presently sensed; (3) and that which remembers or stores information about sequences of senses and sensations. Imagine its covering canvas consists of a meta potential, for all those possibilities which could become manifest to experiential sensateness in its space-time, but which have not yet become certain or manifest. Imagine its covering canvas also consists of those senses and sensations which do presently manifest and store information about all previous sequences of manifestations.
Imagine a trivalent triangle, consisting of 3 points connected by 3 lines. Each point represents a kind. Each line represents the degree by which each point differs from each other. Each point can be represented by its own formula. Three formulas represent the sum of the points. Each formula can change or flux only in synchronicity with flux of the other two. What Trinitarian or trivalent logic may explicate the Synchronizer? What Trinitarian may be intuited or implicated in the experience of any of the three particular formulas?
Does trivalent logic implicate a Meta Synchronizer of holistic or meta-formalizing; does it implicate that no particular formula knowable to mortals can cause or control the meta formula? Does it implicate that a formula for a part cannot acquire control over a formula for a whole, without simultaneously usurping the whole and reducing it to a part?
Is the logically complete, consistent, and coherent analysis of whether any non-trivial communication is random, chosen, or determined a matter of flux and fuzz, which depends on unfolding feedback, context, perspective, and purpose?
****
See Tri-valent logic: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Three-value+Logic; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic; http://lexnet.bravepages.com/firstorder.htm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
To my intuition, mortals share what may as well be conceptualized as an unresolved and unknown set of unconscious fuzz (Jungian collective unconscious?). That is Source (God?), which is fuzz to us; IT is the origin of all that synchronizes before us, in sequential manifestations of patterns, shape, focus, matter, and logos. Our varying, individuating perspectives constitute that which we consciously experience in meta sequencing, after that of which we are unconscious, i.e., the origin of our Will, has already designed and “decided.”
The reality we share -- as inferior, mortal perspectives of an encompassing, eternal whole -- is a constant, yet continuously changing, synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity. “Behind” that which we individuate, there abides a real synchronizing Source of reality, in respect of which the entire combination of all that we experience – subjectively and objectively – unfolds and finds expression. That which we experience and appreciate feeds back to, and affects, the Synchronizer. In that way, the Synchronizer cares for, relates to, and participates in, our experiences.
If so, what may that entail, in terms of math and bivalent (true vs. untrue) logic? How may the universe of the subjective relate to the universe of the objective? How may purpose, point of view, and context or frame of reference combine and react in order to allow us to communicate meaningfully about that which is assumed to be (1) indifferently random, (2) appreciably chosen, or (3) physically determined? Is any sequence “really” random, chosen, or physically determined – or do such concepts only convey meaning depending upon purpose, perspective, and context?
Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?
Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.
Intuitively, God means to facilitate closer appreciation for how communication and appreciation are synchronized and fed back and forth between the perspectives of the whole and of the parts. By what process of design is this done? Through an evolutionary and recycling process that entails experiences of perspectives of birth, growth, demise, and death ... and rebirth.
This cycle of growth, corruption, and demise applies to all forms for expressions of consciousness and concepts, even to institutions and nations. The matter of America is being corrupted and changed before our eyes. The Idea of America will be steeled by the experience, and the Idea, in due turn, will return closer to its Source.
Is there a standard of morality that can save us from the despair engendered by radically relativistic (anarchic) or arbitrary (totalitarian) moral values? I think, yes. That standard is this: Be decently empathetic to one another in respect of a meta-Synchronizer. Stated alternatively, cooperate to assimilate and sustain civilization by which family friendly values can be meaningfully communicated among generations.
How we relate to God affects how God relates to us. But we are more than our bodies and brains. The Identity -- for each of us -- stretches in consciousness well beyond the apparent physical limits of our skins -- not magically or omnipotently, but in due course and time.
When we love, respect, and honor God, we believe. When we do not, we cause unnecessary pain for everyone, including ourselves. This is because our consciousness cannot flourish apart from the collecting consciousness of God. God uses the logos of carrots and sticks to help guide us back. Until we learn logic, God relies on superstition. Until we learn empiricism, God relies on logic. Until we bring intuition to consciousness, to fill holes that cannot otherwise be filled in reason, God relies on empiricism. Until we firmly accept God, God relies on intuition.
Regardless, the potential of that which we intuit as the Collective Unconscious seems Trinitarian: Its holistic aspect is constant; its individuating aspect is continuous; its relational aspect is reconciling.
How may reasoned intuition suggest that the Judeo-Christian narrative is closer to the truth about God than the Mohammedan? Consider: Is God's purpose to guide us, to the extent we have been gifted with thinking minds and free will, to appreciate God as God abides and is intuitively pertinent? If so, God's pertinence is readily intuitable, in respect of God's being: existential accompanier; art communicator; empathy experiencer; care inspirer; civilizing performer; and synchronizer of feedback in meta relations among wholes and parts.
***
For seeking collective rights and duties, we can look mainly to God or to Big Gov. To the extent we unnecessarily replace God with Big Gov, we tend to increase problems. For assimilating or collectivizing mores, we ought to look more to traditional ideas about God that have worked well in history to assimilate happy, flourishing, and defensible civilizations.
I get the point regarding false “proofs” that GOD exists. But there are grounds for discussing what VALUES should be assimilated, so that everything does not reduce to relativistic self justification. For that, people yearn for a standard.
Perhaps a midway test may relate to this: What values are necessary to sustain a decent civilization that avails reasonable opportunity for each person to express and pursue his/her interests?
Problem is, if that is your test, you still have to defend against those who would drown it under secular or sectarian collectivism. And I don't know how you defend against religiously fanatical communism or Islam without positing, however briefly or generally, a reasoned, alternative faith.
As to the existence of God and the values aspect, I think much of it really is true. That said, I’m not so confident that much of the overlay on Jesus’ words, beyond the words attributed to Him, are free of metaphor. I doubt the idea of Jesus dying on a cross is so that no one else should ever again have to die on a cross. Rather, I suspect the idea is more broadly representative of the necessity for creative destruction in order to pursue or save a transcendent recreation. We must all periodically suffer and die, to be recreated to God’s perpetual process of existential learning and appreciation. IMO. In any event, there is a great deal of good that can come out of studying and assimilating the values as taught in the historical context of the Bible -- for fundamental believers and figurative believers, alike. I think much of the religion and social message as taught by Jesus is commensurate, even necessary, with sustaining a decent society while we are on earth.
On the other hand, if Islam is a religion, then so is Communism; if Communism is not a religion, then neither is Islam. Both creeds worship a horror of a “God” -- at best, of absolute indifference, at worst, of absolute terror. Although both worship ideas about that which does or should guide us – metaphysically, beyond logic, empiricism, experience, history, or decent empathy or intuition – both also utterly discredit the value of middle class freedom of mind and activity. Christianity does not do that. Insofar as Communism and Islam are both founded on ugly, clanging, soul-annihilating, horrific lies, it seems only fitting that practitioners of one tend to offer escape in opium, the other in vodka.
This is why Pascal's Wager ("What if its true?") does not inspire me: The same wager could be offered by an Islamist and a Communist. That is, if their notions are true, there is much to be gained. If they are not, why, we are just "a nothing speck of dust" anyway. As for me, I need something that fits with logic, experience, and intuition a little more than a wager that is passed down by people who may or may not have found advantage in passing it down. And I think God avails that to every receptive heart and mind. So I prefer much, not all, of the reasoning of C.S. Lewis. BTW -- Improved arguments, based on trends in modern science, may be found in Klingman's "The Atheist and the God Particle."
Why does the left love Muslim throwbacks? Well, both the Left and Muslims get their kicks in ruthless, authoritarian collectivism, where they weigh individual freedom and dignity very little in comparison with the security of group rule. They both despise the life of the individual. Why? Because they both have their eyes directed to a false ideal. For them, this world, insofar as man's presence on it, is good for one thing: getting done with it. Meantime, they live in addict land, lost in opium and vodka. They are teenage elephants who never had a decent father figure. This is hardly surprising, considering what multi culti has done to traditional family values. For most of them, it's too late to have much hope that they can be rewired. Either we will wake up and leverage all decent means for defeating them, or they will bury us and return the world to fierce despair.
****
As to the existence of God and the values aspect, I think much of it really is true. That said, I’m not so confident that much of the overlay on Jesus’ words, beyond the words attributed to Him, are free of metaphor. I doubt the idea of Jesus dying on a cross is so that no one else should ever again have to die on a cross. Rather, I suspect the idea is more broadly representative of the necessity for creative destruction in order to pursue or save a transcendent recreation. We must all periodically suffer and die, to be recreated to God’s perpetual process of existential learning and appreciation. IMO. In any event, there is a great deal of good that can come out of studying and assimilating the values as taught in the historical context of the Bible -- for fundamental believers and figurative believers, alike. I think much of the religion and social message as taught by Jesus is commensurate, even necessary, with sustaining a decent society while we are on earth.
On the other hand, if Islam is a religion, then so is Communism; if Communism is not a religion, then neither is Islam. Both creeds worship a horror of a “God” -- at best, of absolute indifference, at worst, of absolute terror. Although both worship ideas about that which does or should guide us – metaphysically, beyond logic, empiricism, experience, history, or decent empathy or intuition – both also utterly discredit the value of middle class freedom of mind and activity. Christianity does not do that. Insofar as Communism and Islam are both founded on ugly, clanging, soul-annihilating, horrific lies, it seems only fitting that practitioners of one tend to offer escape in opium, the other in vodka.
Pascal's Wager does not inspire me. The same wager could be offered by an Islamist and a Communist. That is, if their notions are true, there is much to be gained. If they are not, why, we are just "a nothing speck of dust" anyway. As for me, I need something that fits with logic, experience, and intuition a little more than a wager that is passed down by people who may or may not have found advantage in passing it down. And I think God avails that to every receptive heart and mind. So I prefer much, not all, of the reasoning of C.S. Lewis. BTW -- Improved arguments, based on trends in modern science, may be found in Klingman's "The Atheist and the God Particle."
Post a Comment