Wednesday, June 23, 2010
More Blogs Elsewhere
I am experimenting with different blogging sites. This one (http://nonismo.wordpress.com/) has a more pleasant interface. Of course I am grateful to Blogger for giving me this space. I am leaning toward wordpress because of their text editor. I also feel a little iffy about these ads I introduced into this blogger blog as an experiment. Lord knows I 'm not being read enough to make anything from these ads. And yet I don't want to shut them down. I get interesting things in the mail thereby (but not money --blah!)
Monday, June 21, 2010
secretion
being and/or thingness. discuss.
abstraction. what is abstraction? what are concepts?
concepts are concepts. they are their own form of being. all intelligible being is conceptual being.
but intelligible being is so mixed w/ sensual and emotion being that we do not see the difference. we experience a fusion. only dialectic can reveal this dual-nature of human experience.
the subject-object divide is a practical but illusory dichotomy. but so is the illusion-reality dichotomy. dialectic is a snake that swallows its own tail. still, a worthwhile residue remains.
wisdom is there. wisdom is findable. knock and it shall be answered. mysticism isn't necessary. the betrayal of reason isn't necessary.
1. most don't think w/ any intensity.
2. those who do must.
3. they must as the painter must paint.
4. concept is an art form.
5. clarity is one goal.
6. significance is another.
7. generality is another.
8. what is the conceptual skeleton of human reality/experience?
9. thats the task.
10. thats the sculpture.
11. thought as sculpture.
12. number is rarefied word.
13. mathematics is a game w/. indeterminate being.
14. the sacred heart of jesus is a profound symbol.
15. we are dealing with the heart and not the brain.
16. the brain creates the symbol of the heart.
17. all symbolism implies the brain.
18. the "brain" is just a biological symbol for Concept.
19. conceptualism is NOT idealism.
20. concept is the intelligible structure of monism.
21. concepts exist systematically, as part of ONE system.
22. we experience as embodied whats a unified system of intelligibility.
23. the real is rational. the intelligible real is rational.
24. the non-conceptual is tied up w/ the conceptual. we feel and then we name and describe these feelings with abstractions.
25. abstractions are universals.
26. concept is prior to time.
27. concept is prior to every THING.
28. thingness is conceptual.
29. thingness is unification.
30. unity is utterly prior to human thought.
31. human thought is unification.
32. humanity is an abstraction/concept.
33. thought is an abstraction/concept.
34. concept is an abstraction/concept.
35. what most folks think about least, perhaps, is thinking itself.
36. therefore our confusion.
37. we don't step back far enough.
38. know yourself. philosophy as self-consciousness.
39. wisdom is a matter of self-consciousness.
40. nomen est numen. naming is knowing. rumplestilskin.
41. i can type all i want. only a few will understand me. only those who care about clarity of thought.
42. some are sensitive to spatial form (sculpture and painting).
43. some are sensitive to sonic form. (music).
44. others are sensitive to conceptual form. (philosophy)
45. narrative is a mix of all of these.
46. in music, the theme is a character.
47. movies give us sound/image/concept simultaneously. the holy trinity.
48. the philosopher clarifies/improves the intelligible structure of human experience.
49. profound philosophy, the best kind, intersects with religion and art.
50. it is the task of philosophy to describe the task of philosophy.
51. philosophy is the root conceptual science. the buck stops here.
52. philosophy must explain the relationship of religion, art, and philosophy.
53. philosophy is the science of science.
54. the word science could and should mean more than it does generally.
55. we have a narrow view of reality.
56. our view of reality is our reality.
57. without leaving our chair, we can change our reality by THINKING.
58. the subject-object dichotomy obscures this.
59. reality/experience is naked. if we are blind to it, it's because we are addicted to vanities, confusions.
60. these confusions simultaneously flatter and limit us.
61. we can't see too far beyond money and sensual pleasure.
62. we dance sentimentally around a golden calf.
63. ok, so i exaggerate. especially in the case of the quality live-wires in my life.
64. but generally, no one sees reality as a miracle.
65. we are blind enough to be bored. and we are blind enough to not see this boredom as blindness.
66. feeding, breeding, and spending. that's America. most of America.
67. As to using our bodies or minds -- we leave that to Mr. Walton & sons.
abstraction. what is abstraction? what are concepts?
concepts are concepts. they are their own form of being. all intelligible being is conceptual being.
but intelligible being is so mixed w/ sensual and emotion being that we do not see the difference. we experience a fusion. only dialectic can reveal this dual-nature of human experience.
the subject-object divide is a practical but illusory dichotomy. but so is the illusion-reality dichotomy. dialectic is a snake that swallows its own tail. still, a worthwhile residue remains.
wisdom is there. wisdom is findable. knock and it shall be answered. mysticism isn't necessary. the betrayal of reason isn't necessary.
1. most don't think w/ any intensity.
2. those who do must.
3. they must as the painter must paint.
4. concept is an art form.
5. clarity is one goal.
6. significance is another.
7. generality is another.
8. what is the conceptual skeleton of human reality/experience?
9. thats the task.
10. thats the sculpture.
11. thought as sculpture.
12. number is rarefied word.
13. mathematics is a game w/. indeterminate being.
14. the sacred heart of jesus is a profound symbol.
15. we are dealing with the heart and not the brain.
16. the brain creates the symbol of the heart.
17. all symbolism implies the brain.
18. the "brain" is just a biological symbol for Concept.
19. conceptualism is NOT idealism.
20. concept is the intelligible structure of monism.
21. concepts exist systematically, as part of ONE system.
22. we experience as embodied whats a unified system of intelligibility.
23. the real is rational. the intelligible real is rational.
24. the non-conceptual is tied up w/ the conceptual. we feel and then we name and describe these feelings with abstractions.
25. abstractions are universals.
26. concept is prior to time.
27. concept is prior to every THING.
28. thingness is conceptual.
29. thingness is unification.
30. unity is utterly prior to human thought.
31. human thought is unification.
32. humanity is an abstraction/concept.
33. thought is an abstraction/concept.
34. concept is an abstraction/concept.
35. what most folks think about least, perhaps, is thinking itself.
36. therefore our confusion.
37. we don't step back far enough.
38. know yourself. philosophy as self-consciousness.
39. wisdom is a matter of self-consciousness.
40. nomen est numen. naming is knowing. rumplestilskin.
41. i can type all i want. only a few will understand me. only those who care about clarity of thought.
42. some are sensitive to spatial form (sculpture and painting).
43. some are sensitive to sonic form. (music).
44. others are sensitive to conceptual form. (philosophy)
45. narrative is a mix of all of these.
46. in music, the theme is a character.
47. movies give us sound/image/concept simultaneously. the holy trinity.
48. the philosopher clarifies/improves the intelligible structure of human experience.
49. profound philosophy, the best kind, intersects with religion and art.
50. it is the task of philosophy to describe the task of philosophy.
51. philosophy is the root conceptual science. the buck stops here.
52. philosophy must explain the relationship of religion, art, and philosophy.
53. philosophy is the science of science.
54. the word science could and should mean more than it does generally.
55. we have a narrow view of reality.
56. our view of reality is our reality.
57. without leaving our chair, we can change our reality by THINKING.
58. the subject-object dichotomy obscures this.
59. reality/experience is naked. if we are blind to it, it's because we are addicted to vanities, confusions.
60. these confusions simultaneously flatter and limit us.
61. we can't see too far beyond money and sensual pleasure.
62. we dance sentimentally around a golden calf.
63. ok, so i exaggerate. especially in the case of the quality live-wires in my life.
64. but generally, no one sees reality as a miracle.
65. we are blind enough to be bored. and we are blind enough to not see this boredom as blindness.
66. feeding, breeding, and spending. that's America. most of America.
67. As to using our bodies or minds -- we leave that to Mr. Walton & sons.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
religion
Some philosophy I personally couldn't call religion, and some religion is little or nothing like philosophy.
At the moment, though, I consider my current philosophy as something that simultaneously fulfills a religious purpose.
For others like me who can't abide the notion of the supernatural (and are even skeptical perhaps as to what "natural" is really supposed to mean) my perspective may be of value.
I don't a person has to betray "reason" in the least to have that joy that religion promises.
Blake stressed that men don't get into heaven by curbing their passions but rather by organizing their minds. (Blake was a profound philosopher, but are his annotations even noticed? Does our modern allergy to our Christian heritage make us blind to some of our great writers?)
Blake is something like Nietzsche, except that Blake was wiser and brighter. He reacted against the same godlessness. But instead of forbidding pity, he warned of the dangers of self-righteousness. He saw that much that went by the name of religion was nothing but this self-righteousness. He saw that passion was the foundation of joy, and also that the weak in courage are the strong in cunning.
Now Blake saw men as mental travelers who passed thru states. So to be weak in courage is a state that humans get stuck in. Courage for what? Courage to love, to risk the wound of love --that which the crucifixion symbolizes.
We dodge this love with all the cleverness that humans are capable of. We invent secret handshakes, build our exclusive buildings, be they skyscrapers or cathedrals. We learn to use a complicated and intimidating jargon to convince ourselves that we are somehow wise even as we are unsatisfied, anxious, angry.
Well, the world abounds in scapegoats. Indeed, there is much to accuse. The atheist has a good case against the religious hypocrite. The communist and the capitalist are both right on certain issues. The conspiracy theorist has his secret group behind the scenes. The less materialistic intellectual can blame a more-materialistic less-intellectual majority for letting society rot. But all of us are tangled in the goods and money. Drug money. Bomb money. High interest money. The food at the grocery store...
At the moment, though, I consider my current philosophy as something that simultaneously fulfills a religious purpose.
For others like me who can't abide the notion of the supernatural (and are even skeptical perhaps as to what "natural" is really supposed to mean) my perspective may be of value.
I don't a person has to betray "reason" in the least to have that joy that religion promises.
Blake stressed that men don't get into heaven by curbing their passions but rather by organizing their minds. (Blake was a profound philosopher, but are his annotations even noticed? Does our modern allergy to our Christian heritage make us blind to some of our great writers?)
Blake is something like Nietzsche, except that Blake was wiser and brighter. He reacted against the same godlessness. But instead of forbidding pity, he warned of the dangers of self-righteousness. He saw that much that went by the name of religion was nothing but this self-righteousness. He saw that passion was the foundation of joy, and also that the weak in courage are the strong in cunning.
Now Blake saw men as mental travelers who passed thru states. So to be weak in courage is a state that humans get stuck in. Courage for what? Courage to love, to risk the wound of love --that which the crucifixion symbolizes.
We dodge this love with all the cleverness that humans are capable of. We invent secret handshakes, build our exclusive buildings, be they skyscrapers or cathedrals. We learn to use a complicated and intimidating jargon to convince ourselves that we are somehow wise even as we are unsatisfied, anxious, angry.
Well, the world abounds in scapegoats. Indeed, there is much to accuse. The atheist has a good case against the religious hypocrite. The communist and the capitalist are both right on certain issues. The conspiracy theorist has his secret group behind the scenes. The less materialistic intellectual can blame a more-materialistic less-intellectual majority for letting society rot. But all of us are tangled in the goods and money. Drug money. Bomb money. High interest money. The food at the grocery store...
Ineffable
I suggest that thought is composed of universals which are simultaneously unities. Proper nouns are an exception. But these are still unities, if not universals.
If we zoom out and try to unify all the universals of thought, in other words consider all unities as a unity, we run into certain complications. If this attempt to include all experience is an object of thought, we can quickly ask who is thinking about this master-unity. Soon we have to consider this master-unity as its own audience, which pushes us back toward dualism. And yet this unity is by definition the concept of all concepts. So we are forced to think of it as dynamic. The concepts are all connected. A system of differences. Organized like a network. Within this system are concepts of the world, the body, and the concept of this system itself. The master-concept is a snake with its tail in its mouth. A self-eating self-shitting system of concepts which is in direct contact (?) with the ineffable. The ineffable is sensation (inner and outer), and emotion. This is stuff that painters and musicians work with. Or chefs and perfumers. And the sense of touch is not to be despised. The system of concepts includes the universals that allow us to name objects, have long distance conversations on a forum.
These thoughts are discrete. Singular nouns that we can iterate for plurality. But we seem to think in ones. And yet physics suggests that molecules are just about everywhere on earth. Scientific reality is continuous. And I think that sensation is largely continuous, while admitting that the visual field is automatically broken up into pieces.
The ineffable seems continuous. Language, including all of our philosophy and religion, seems discrete. Our abstractions are small in the face of life. And yet I can't offer a large abstraction to prove this. It's a value judgment or something. I experience a feeling that all my art and philosophy is dwarfed by the ineffable human experience, which largely eludes our discourse.
If we zoom out and try to unify all the universals of thought, in other words consider all unities as a unity, we run into certain complications. If this attempt to include all experience is an object of thought, we can quickly ask who is thinking about this master-unity. Soon we have to consider this master-unity as its own audience, which pushes us back toward dualism. And yet this unity is by definition the concept of all concepts. So we are forced to think of it as dynamic. The concepts are all connected. A system of differences. Organized like a network. Within this system are concepts of the world, the body, and the concept of this system itself. The master-concept is a snake with its tail in its mouth. A self-eating self-shitting system of concepts which is in direct contact (?) with the ineffable. The ineffable is sensation (inner and outer), and emotion. This is stuff that painters and musicians work with. Or chefs and perfumers. And the sense of touch is not to be despised. The system of concepts includes the universals that allow us to name objects, have long distance conversations on a forum.
These thoughts are discrete. Singular nouns that we can iterate for plurality. But we seem to think in ones. And yet physics suggests that molecules are just about everywhere on earth. Scientific reality is continuous. And I think that sensation is largely continuous, while admitting that the visual field is automatically broken up into pieces.
The ineffable seems continuous. Language, including all of our philosophy and religion, seems discrete. Our abstractions are small in the face of life. And yet I can't offer a large abstraction to prove this. It's a value judgment or something. I experience a feeling that all my art and philosophy is dwarfed by the ineffable human experience, which largely eludes our discourse.
Words
1. We can all find something different in the TLP.
2. After all, it's style is mysterious, really.
3. It seems to negate itself, while yet claiming to have solved the more pressing problems of philosophy.
4. I'm not going to play the professional here.
5. A person must simply read it.
6. My comments are just an informal perspective.
7. I feel that it tells us that whatever we know, it doesn't really explain anything.
8. Our language is a system of relationships. But within what that cannot itself be said, do these relationships exist?
9. My informal interpretation of "the real is rational" is directly connected to the "limits of my language are the limits of my world."
10. What this is all about, in my opinion, is that it's trying to make us aware of certain dualities that we take for granted.
11. We say we are talking about the world, but our words refer to other words. And this "world" is a word.
12. We talk about the transcendence of thought, but this transcendence is itself a thought.
13. We talk about the world beyond our human minds, but this talk is within our human mind.
14. But what or where is this human mind we talk of?
15. We draw the line between the world and the mind with language.
16. But we can always talk and think in a different way.
17. For practical reasons, we think of the self as if contained in a body.
18. And yet our experience of life is the experience not only of our bodies, but of a world.
19. And within this world we experience other human beings who also use our language.
20. And this language allows us to be in one another's head, even if imperfectly.
21. Because the law protects our bodies and our property, we tend to think of the self as body and property. This is much easier as far as the paperwork goes.
22. We think of the world as it was before we were born. But we can only think this way after we are born.
23. We think of the world as it will be when we are dead, but we can only think this way when we are not yet dead.
24. Any version of God that fits snugly within our language is just not big enough.
25. We make and break words all the time.
26. None of our sentences are essential.
27. None of our distinctions are logically necessary.
2. After all, it's style is mysterious, really.
3. It seems to negate itself, while yet claiming to have solved the more pressing problems of philosophy.
4. I'm not going to play the professional here.
5. A person must simply read it.
6. My comments are just an informal perspective.
7. I feel that it tells us that whatever we know, it doesn't really explain anything.
8. Our language is a system of relationships. But within what that cannot itself be said, do these relationships exist?
9. My informal interpretation of "the real is rational" is directly connected to the "limits of my language are the limits of my world."
10. What this is all about, in my opinion, is that it's trying to make us aware of certain dualities that we take for granted.
11. We say we are talking about the world, but our words refer to other words. And this "world" is a word.
12. We talk about the transcendence of thought, but this transcendence is itself a thought.
13. We talk about the world beyond our human minds, but this talk is within our human mind.
14. But what or where is this human mind we talk of?
15. We draw the line between the world and the mind with language.
16. But we can always talk and think in a different way.
17. For practical reasons, we think of the self as if contained in a body.
18. And yet our experience of life is the experience not only of our bodies, but of a world.
19. And within this world we experience other human beings who also use our language.
20. And this language allows us to be in one another's head, even if imperfectly.
21. Because the law protects our bodies and our property, we tend to think of the self as body and property. This is much easier as far as the paperwork goes.
22. We think of the world as it was before we were born. But we can only think this way after we are born.
23. We think of the world as it will be when we are dead, but we can only think this way when we are not yet dead.
24. Any version of God that fits snugly within our language is just not big enough.
25. We make and break words all the time.
26. None of our sentences are essential.
27. None of our distinctions are logically necessary.
Raw Feels
Ok, we philosopher want something to chew on, right? So what is this "qualia" stuff? Is there a better word?
We know already, right? That pain is a private experience, except as we translate it into words, grimaces, wails, expenditures, dances.
And the love poems capture love? Or do they remind us? Inspire a vivid memory? Or a vivid fantasy?
"Why does he care?"
Because we are all already there. It's a low cost entertainment, to simply pay close attention to the sensual we are immersed in, but often neglect to notice.
Because science can offer us all sorts of technology, which is great, when we aren't destroying ourselves with it. But neither science nor theology nor abstract thought of any kind can replace sensation/emotion or even say much about it. It just is.
"I am what I am." A good line. But it doesn't apply to you-know-who unless we are to understand you-know-who to be this irreducible reality we are immersed in. And even if we were to view things this way, that would still be just an abstraction, and not touch emotion/sensation as experienced.
Obviously, technology seeks to increase our pleasure. Even if only by making us feel safer by increasing the threat to our enemies. Our conscious motives seem to trace back to emotion. We have words for these emotions which of course are not these emotions themselves. Or I personally can't see how they are the same thing.
"The real is rational" says Hegel. Well, the intelligible real is lingual. I will grant him, and others, that. But there is something we cannot directly communicate which is with us all the time, admitting that we can concentrate on our abstractions until the sense-emotion element is in the background of "consciousness."
By the way, what the hell is "consciousness"?
It's my feeling/thought that some of the most obvious aspects of our "existence" remain not only unexplained but unexplainable. Yes, I know that f = ma and e =mc^2 and various other equations and that there's this nifty little organ called the brain. But I also know that I experience all of these abstractions as merely one "layer" of my existence, and I suspect it's the same for all.
Keats said "oh for a life of sensations rather than thoughts." I always thought that was strange. I feel I am closer to understanding him. Not that I don't love thought, but perhaps he was more tuned in to his sensations and emotions than most.
Perhaps I think that many of us, and certainly myself at times, are richer than we realize. I am suggesting that advertisement (to mention just one factor) has us generally coveting abstractions, the mere symbols of status, at the expense of noticing the sensual wealth we are immersed in, especially if we are lucky enough to live in relative safety and comfort.
We crowd our museums with aesthetic treasures. These treasures are transported in armored cars. I love art, but I also see the danger in this kind of structure. Before long, we have an implication that beauty is one more commodity. One must at least travel to some secure building to gaze on official beauty. Because the commercials and the museums assure us that beauty is never free.
Religions tell us that the good consists in certain beliefs, duties, and abstinences. Science has little or nothing to say about beauty, so far as I can tell. The artist sends a mixed message. Because s/he produces and sells objects of beauty. Other artists might be interpreted as trying to "open our eyes" to the beauty all around us. I don't know if this is the intention of the color-field painters, but this is one possible message to take away from them.
Redness is. Warmth is. A smile is. Harmony is. Does Heidegger have anything to say about this?
To talk about "raw feels" is already to move away from them. "They" are what "they" are.
We know already, right? That pain is a private experience, except as we translate it into words, grimaces, wails, expenditures, dances.
And the love poems capture love? Or do they remind us? Inspire a vivid memory? Or a vivid fantasy?
"Why does he care?"
Because we are all already there. It's a low cost entertainment, to simply pay close attention to the sensual we are immersed in, but often neglect to notice.
Because science can offer us all sorts of technology, which is great, when we aren't destroying ourselves with it. But neither science nor theology nor abstract thought of any kind can replace sensation/emotion or even say much about it. It just is.
"I am what I am." A good line. But it doesn't apply to you-know-who unless we are to understand you-know-who to be this irreducible reality we are immersed in. And even if we were to view things this way, that would still be just an abstraction, and not touch emotion/sensation as experienced.
Obviously, technology seeks to increase our pleasure. Even if only by making us feel safer by increasing the threat to our enemies. Our conscious motives seem to trace back to emotion. We have words for these emotions which of course are not these emotions themselves. Or I personally can't see how they are the same thing.
"The real is rational" says Hegel. Well, the intelligible real is lingual. I will grant him, and others, that. But there is something we cannot directly communicate which is with us all the time, admitting that we can concentrate on our abstractions until the sense-emotion element is in the background of "consciousness."
By the way, what the hell is "consciousness"?
It's my feeling/thought that some of the most obvious aspects of our "existence" remain not only unexplained but unexplainable. Yes, I know that f = ma and e =mc^2 and various other equations and that there's this nifty little organ called the brain. But I also know that I experience all of these abstractions as merely one "layer" of my existence, and I suspect it's the same for all.
Keats said "oh for a life of sensations rather than thoughts." I always thought that was strange. I feel I am closer to understanding him. Not that I don't love thought, but perhaps he was more tuned in to his sensations and emotions than most.
Perhaps I think that many of us, and certainly myself at times, are richer than we realize. I am suggesting that advertisement (to mention just one factor) has us generally coveting abstractions, the mere symbols of status, at the expense of noticing the sensual wealth we are immersed in, especially if we are lucky enough to live in relative safety and comfort.
We crowd our museums with aesthetic treasures. These treasures are transported in armored cars. I love art, but I also see the danger in this kind of structure. Before long, we have an implication that beauty is one more commodity. One must at least travel to some secure building to gaze on official beauty. Because the commercials and the museums assure us that beauty is never free.
Religions tell us that the good consists in certain beliefs, duties, and abstinences. Science has little or nothing to say about beauty, so far as I can tell. The artist sends a mixed message. Because s/he produces and sells objects of beauty. Other artists might be interpreted as trying to "open our eyes" to the beauty all around us. I don't know if this is the intention of the color-field painters, but this is one possible message to take away from them.
Redness is. Warmth is. A smile is. Harmony is. Does Heidegger have anything to say about this?
To talk about "raw feels" is already to move away from them. "They" are what "they" are.
AIT
There is a proto-logic, an ur-logic.
Notation is contingent.
We can symbolize numbers, for instance, both with different glyphs and/or in different bases. (And also different phonemes, of course). Still, we have same integers, all with a distance of unity between them. (A non tempered number system would be almost useless for ordinary purposes, and extremely counter intuitional.)
To consider whether a statement is true or false, we must consider it as a unity.
Indeed, thought in general is the unification of lesser unities. With math and formal logic, we see thought at its most discrete.
With a book like Finnegans Wake, we see thought/language at its least discrete. Which is presumably the point ("the abnihilisation of the etym.")
The word "transcendental" is self-canceling when followed to its logical conclusion. If experience is structured, then concepts like "unstructured experience" are one more example of structured experience.
Kronecker is a fascinating character. It's too hard to find information on the man. "God created the integers. The rest is the work of man." He was a proponent of finitism. He was quite the student of philosophy, and not just a math man. He was suspicious of the work of Cantor. He teased the man who proved pi transcendental by calling his proof elegant but also a waste of time. As pi did not exist.
Last night an amusing parallel occurred to me. As we calculate the digits of a transcendental number, each calculated digit gives us information that is one tenth as significant as the digit before. The closer we get to the limit, the slower we are moving toward it. This reminds me of acceleration towards the speed of light. As an object accelerates toward C, it gains mass, and this means an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate the speed of light. In the same way, an infinite number of calculations would be required to exactly calculate the digits of pi or e.
Pi does not exist, then. Only approximations of pi exists. Of course the Greek letter exists, and "pi" exists as a useful symbol, but this symbol points toward an impossibility. We cannot know a transcendental number in its fullness, no matter what integer base we use. If we calculate a trillion digits, we should think of these same trillion digits in relation to infinity, which would make them equivalent to zero digits. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero.
If I approve of finitism, then why do I speak of infinity? Infinity is an algorithm! And so is pi, and e. The notion of the infinite is where math touches Zeno and philosophy. Mathematics is a perfect zone for the examination of the so-called transcendental.
I have argued, never denying my many influences, that beings are unities. This is why math is philosophical. The notion of unity, of the One is crucial, in my opinion. We experience the world as a collection of objects. And this collection is itself an object. And by object I mean unity.
We can consider the bicycle as a unity, or zoom in and consider the chain on this bicycle as a unity. We can look at an individual animal or zoom out and consider the species. I have heard the word holon used for this Russian doll concept.
We can look at molecules, or zoom in and look at atoms. And we can zoom in even further and look at subatomic particles.
If mathematics is the grammar of nature, and mathematics is essentially discrete (despite the brilliant attempts of calculus to overcome this), we see that nature must, for human beings, be discrete, at least insofar as it is an object of thought.
This is obvious even in the fact that we unify nature with the name/concept "Nature."
Thinking is always this way.
"Science is what we can teach a computer to do." Donald Knuth.
Questions of ethics are obviously important to human life, and indeed they are associated with the philosophical tradition.
Still, I can't help feeling that ethics are philosophically off-center. Does it really require a philosopher to "do" ethics, if ethics are central to all social life? There's something questionable here. I'm suspicious of a science of ethics. Can philosophy, on the subject of ethics, transcend opinion?
Of course one can call all philosophy a matter of opinion. And philosophy is much like literature. This hasn't kept me from moving away from the obviously literary toward philosophy that addresses the "structure of structure" or, in other words, the shape of thought. (Science of science is another excellent description for the same thing.)
Mathematics has gripped me precisely because it is universal, and does transcend opinion, or at least it transcends opinion as much as this transcendence is possible. This is not to deny that their are debates in mathematics, but the core is largely not debated. The integers are there, no matter what base or glyphs or phonemes one prefers. And the primes are there. Number theory is fascinating because this is math that feeds not on nature but on itself. To use calculus to study the distribution of primes, rather than the instantaneously acceleration of rockets, is fascinating.
Mathematics is also the collision of the perfectly finite with the perfectly infinite --admitting that this "infinite" is a somewhat paradoxical concept.
Set theory is math that concentrates on unification pure and simple. The grouping of groups. Badiou fascinates me, but I have not bought his book. There are too many good books out there. This is why libraries are such a great idea. Rather than each of us buying 100 of the same books, 100 of us can each buy 1 percent of a hundred different books. But the library in my city is lazy about buying recent philosophy books. How it annoys me that so few read philosophy! That so few care! I do feel a certain rage at the general thoughtlessness ....
Wittgenstein was right to focus where he focused. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with each of his statements. He saw that philosophy can easily be absorbed in a bad way by psychology. Philosophy in the ideal sense is more central than a "science" like psychology. If philosophy is the science of science, it must keep to the center. Empirical specialists have different concerns the philosopher. The politician is applied ethics, for instance. The physicists aren't looking to Aristotle. But the philosopher does still have a use for Aristotle. The accident and essence distinction is the presentation of a "law" of thought. We do think in terms of accident and essence. And this is a contingent revelation of the proto-logic. Accident is simply that which is not part of the abstract unity of an abstract class. Accident and essence have everything to do with set theory.
I blog for the few who might be interested in this aspect of philosophy. I would be happy to discuss these ideas with those who have a real interest and not just an aggressive vanity. I don't mind sincere disagreement. I simply despise a trait that I myself have been a carrier of, which is a tendency to contradict from a motive of vanity. Vanity and envy are always with us. Except when the beauty of the universal makes us utterly forget them.
Infinity is a direction. Positive infinity is a direction down the number line, which has a potential infinity.
If we consider a word like "if," we see we are dealing with a word that is not so easy to define.
Does this not also apply to a word like "not"?
And the question mark: does not this too say something strange?
This leaves us with "and" and "or" which are used in everyday speech in several ways. But of course they do also have a strict logical use which identical to one, in each case, of their everyday uses.
All is this is well known to a student of logic. We also could mention words like "some, " "all," or "none."
Words like this have a meaning entirely different from the meaning of a word like "dog" or "run."
We can use these words to get a peek at the proto-logic.
But remember, it is the opinion of this guy that notation is contingent. And phonemes too are contingent. Or in other words accidental. The word "if" has an essence that has nothing to do with the roman letters that represent it or the way these letters are pronounced in English. I feel that it's safe to assume that any human language must have a word that functions like "if" does in English.
If we examine computer programming language, we see a few basic necessary concepts, and if is one of these, and perhaps, w/ "goto" (the basic ingredient of loops), the most crucial programming concept. I suppose variables are also a contender for this spot. With variables and "goto" statements alone we can create significant and productive loops. This I admit. But without "if" statements, a program has ZERO flexibility. With "if" statements, one program can do anything than programs in general are capable of.
Structured program makes "goto" statements taboo not because they are unnecessary but only because these same structured programming languages provide one with more sophisticated looping structures. The do-while structure is a loop with taste, a loop with restraint. The goto statement is the all purpose tool of the anarchist. The goto statement is the teenage boy of looping structures, and in more complicated programs is often the cause of spaghetti algorithms.
Algorithms are a crucial modern concept, as the modern world is currently guided by algorithms. But not one in ten humans are clear as to the nature of algorithms. What are they? Systems of precise instructions, that include the manipulation of variables within conditional loops. Of course we cannot exclude the input and output procedures that make them useful in the first place.
A number like e can only be approximated. This same number e is also known as the exponential function. It's amusing that the approximation of the such of number is achieved, digit by digit, with an exponentially decreasing amount of precision. In base-10, the 5th digit is only a tenth as precise or significant as the 4th.
We use base ten. Can we imagine base infinity? We would need an infinite number of glyphs. And this would require an infinite memory. So base infinity is a thought experiment. Base 1000 is certainly possible, if absurd.
The advantage of smaller bases is that they provide for the possibility of algorithms. When we multiply large numbers, for instance, we use an algorithm. We break multiplication down to small multiplications, to the kind we memorize in grade school. 7 times 9, and so on. We then "carry," move the decimal point, etc.
To double any binary number requires only the addition of a zero. This is similar to taking any number in base-10 times ten.
AIG, or algorithmic information theory, is something special. I read Chaitin's Meta-math again and was more impressed this time than last, as I was more prepared.
Comprehension is compression. A natural "law" is useful to the degree that it compresses information. We need only look at computers to see this idea in its full potency. The compression of picture and music files is only possible because of repetitions within the constituent bits of these files. A program that calculated the digits of pi could be infinitely shorter than an "algorithm" that presented omega.
Notation is contingent.
We can symbolize numbers, for instance, both with different glyphs and/or in different bases. (And also different phonemes, of course). Still, we have same integers, all with a distance of unity between them. (A non tempered number system would be almost useless for ordinary purposes, and extremely counter intuitional.)
To consider whether a statement is true or false, we must consider it as a unity.
Indeed, thought in general is the unification of lesser unities. With math and formal logic, we see thought at its most discrete.
With a book like Finnegans Wake, we see thought/language at its least discrete. Which is presumably the point ("the abnihilisation of the etym.")
The word "transcendental" is self-canceling when followed to its logical conclusion. If experience is structured, then concepts like "unstructured experience" are one more example of structured experience.
Kronecker is a fascinating character. It's too hard to find information on the man. "God created the integers. The rest is the work of man." He was a proponent of finitism. He was quite the student of philosophy, and not just a math man. He was suspicious of the work of Cantor. He teased the man who proved pi transcendental by calling his proof elegant but also a waste of time. As pi did not exist.
Last night an amusing parallel occurred to me. As we calculate the digits of a transcendental number, each calculated digit gives us information that is one tenth as significant as the digit before. The closer we get to the limit, the slower we are moving toward it. This reminds me of acceleration towards the speed of light. As an object accelerates toward C, it gains mass, and this means an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate the speed of light. In the same way, an infinite number of calculations would be required to exactly calculate the digits of pi or e.
Pi does not exist, then. Only approximations of pi exists. Of course the Greek letter exists, and "pi" exists as a useful symbol, but this symbol points toward an impossibility. We cannot know a transcendental number in its fullness, no matter what integer base we use. If we calculate a trillion digits, we should think of these same trillion digits in relation to infinity, which would make them equivalent to zero digits. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero.
If I approve of finitism, then why do I speak of infinity? Infinity is an algorithm! And so is pi, and e. The notion of the infinite is where math touches Zeno and philosophy. Mathematics is a perfect zone for the examination of the so-called transcendental.
I have argued, never denying my many influences, that beings are unities. This is why math is philosophical. The notion of unity, of the One is crucial, in my opinion. We experience the world as a collection of objects. And this collection is itself an object. And by object I mean unity.
We can consider the bicycle as a unity, or zoom in and consider the chain on this bicycle as a unity. We can look at an individual animal or zoom out and consider the species. I have heard the word holon used for this Russian doll concept.
We can look at molecules, or zoom in and look at atoms. And we can zoom in even further and look at subatomic particles.
If mathematics is the grammar of nature, and mathematics is essentially discrete (despite the brilliant attempts of calculus to overcome this), we see that nature must, for human beings, be discrete, at least insofar as it is an object of thought.
This is obvious even in the fact that we unify nature with the name/concept "Nature."
Thinking is always this way.
"Science is what we can teach a computer to do." Donald Knuth.
Questions of ethics are obviously important to human life, and indeed they are associated with the philosophical tradition.
Still, I can't help feeling that ethics are philosophically off-center. Does it really require a philosopher to "do" ethics, if ethics are central to all social life? There's something questionable here. I'm suspicious of a science of ethics. Can philosophy, on the subject of ethics, transcend opinion?
Of course one can call all philosophy a matter of opinion. And philosophy is much like literature. This hasn't kept me from moving away from the obviously literary toward philosophy that addresses the "structure of structure" or, in other words, the shape of thought. (Science of science is another excellent description for the same thing.)
Mathematics has gripped me precisely because it is universal, and does transcend opinion, or at least it transcends opinion as much as this transcendence is possible. This is not to deny that their are debates in mathematics, but the core is largely not debated. The integers are there, no matter what base or glyphs or phonemes one prefers. And the primes are there. Number theory is fascinating because this is math that feeds not on nature but on itself. To use calculus to study the distribution of primes, rather than the instantaneously acceleration of rockets, is fascinating.
Mathematics is also the collision of the perfectly finite with the perfectly infinite --admitting that this "infinite" is a somewhat paradoxical concept.
Set theory is math that concentrates on unification pure and simple. The grouping of groups. Badiou fascinates me, but I have not bought his book. There are too many good books out there. This is why libraries are such a great idea. Rather than each of us buying 100 of the same books, 100 of us can each buy 1 percent of a hundred different books. But the library in my city is lazy about buying recent philosophy books. How it annoys me that so few read philosophy! That so few care! I do feel a certain rage at the general thoughtlessness ....
Wittgenstein was right to focus where he focused. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with each of his statements. He saw that philosophy can easily be absorbed in a bad way by psychology. Philosophy in the ideal sense is more central than a "science" like psychology. If philosophy is the science of science, it must keep to the center. Empirical specialists have different concerns the philosopher. The politician is applied ethics, for instance. The physicists aren't looking to Aristotle. But the philosopher does still have a use for Aristotle. The accident and essence distinction is the presentation of a "law" of thought. We do think in terms of accident and essence. And this is a contingent revelation of the proto-logic. Accident is simply that which is not part of the abstract unity of an abstract class. Accident and essence have everything to do with set theory.
I blog for the few who might be interested in this aspect of philosophy. I would be happy to discuss these ideas with those who have a real interest and not just an aggressive vanity. I don't mind sincere disagreement. I simply despise a trait that I myself have been a carrier of, which is a tendency to contradict from a motive of vanity. Vanity and envy are always with us. Except when the beauty of the universal makes us utterly forget them.
Infinity is a direction. Positive infinity is a direction down the number line, which has a potential infinity.
If we consider a word like "if," we see we are dealing with a word that is not so easy to define.
Does this not also apply to a word like "not"?
And the question mark: does not this too say something strange?
This leaves us with "and" and "or" which are used in everyday speech in several ways. But of course they do also have a strict logical use which identical to one, in each case, of their everyday uses.
All is this is well known to a student of logic. We also could mention words like "some, " "all," or "none."
Words like this have a meaning entirely different from the meaning of a word like "dog" or "run."
We can use these words to get a peek at the proto-logic.
But remember, it is the opinion of this guy that notation is contingent. And phonemes too are contingent. Or in other words accidental. The word "if" has an essence that has nothing to do with the roman letters that represent it or the way these letters are pronounced in English. I feel that it's safe to assume that any human language must have a word that functions like "if" does in English.
If we examine computer programming language, we see a few basic necessary concepts, and if is one of these, and perhaps, w/ "goto" (the basic ingredient of loops), the most crucial programming concept. I suppose variables are also a contender for this spot. With variables and "goto" statements alone we can create significant and productive loops. This I admit. But without "if" statements, a program has ZERO flexibility. With "if" statements, one program can do anything than programs in general are capable of.
Structured program makes "goto" statements taboo not because they are unnecessary but only because these same structured programming languages provide one with more sophisticated looping structures. The do-while structure is a loop with taste, a loop with restraint. The goto statement is the all purpose tool of the anarchist. The goto statement is the teenage boy of looping structures, and in more complicated programs is often the cause of spaghetti algorithms.
Algorithms are a crucial modern concept, as the modern world is currently guided by algorithms. But not one in ten humans are clear as to the nature of algorithms. What are they? Systems of precise instructions, that include the manipulation of variables within conditional loops. Of course we cannot exclude the input and output procedures that make them useful in the first place.
A number like e can only be approximated. This same number e is also known as the exponential function. It's amusing that the approximation of the such of number is achieved, digit by digit, with an exponentially decreasing amount of precision. In base-10, the 5th digit is only a tenth as precise or significant as the 4th.
We use base ten. Can we imagine base infinity? We would need an infinite number of glyphs. And this would require an infinite memory. So base infinity is a thought experiment. Base 1000 is certainly possible, if absurd.
The advantage of smaller bases is that they provide for the possibility of algorithms. When we multiply large numbers, for instance, we use an algorithm. We break multiplication down to small multiplications, to the kind we memorize in grade school. 7 times 9, and so on. We then "carry," move the decimal point, etc.
To double any binary number requires only the addition of a zero. This is similar to taking any number in base-10 times ten.
AIG, or algorithmic information theory, is something special. I read Chaitin's Meta-math again and was more impressed this time than last, as I was more prepared.
Comprehension is compression. A natural "law" is useful to the degree that it compresses information. We need only look at computers to see this idea in its full potency. The compression of picture and music files is only possible because of repetitions within the constituent bits of these files. A program that calculated the digits of pi could be infinitely shorter than an "algorithm" that presented omega.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments