Identifying imprints or the reasons we act in certain ways (for the worse especially).
The importance of letting go and realizing that many problems stem from what we want / desire not being in line with the realities of others and objective reality in general; especially in cases where we want others to act in a certain way or feel a particular way. We can attempt to appeal to reason and empirical evidence to sway them to our mode of thought, but we cannot coerce them in any other way. Once one is able to cope with fact, then we are able to be at peace with many situations that may otherwise haunt us.
If you desire a relationship with someone who does not reciprocate such desires then we must learn to move on past that desire and allow them live their life separately, at least until such time as they see fit to act otherwise. The chances of them reversing their attitude and reciprocating is diminished if you fail to respect and dignify them by allowing them to continue their life without you and without any unjustified prying, etc. It is not your job to fix other people’s problems especially when they do not want your help.
Many further problems arise from others failing to leave others alone for one reason or another. This is an excellent example of why individuals should be extra careful with whom they have children or participate in mating practices in the first place. Coitus is the means by which humans reproduce and this should be apprised of at all times without compunctions to the contrary. Evolutionarily speaking, it feels pleasurable because that increases the chances of it happening on an oft basis so that the species replicates and ensures survivability, although we as humans, have reached capacity and are now surpassing a healthy population which endangers the species.
The sex act is primarily the means to reproduction. Emotional and spiritual aspects are secondary to this fact. It is only because of our self-referentiality and consciousness that these facts are extant at all. The sex act can be quite a useful and efficient facilitator in the emotional and spiritual arena (not to mention good exercise), but at all times it must still be acknowledged that reproduction may result from said act. This is mere causality; i.e., sperm enter an egg and a human may be the final result. Of course, there are any number of situations which may result in the human not being the result, such as successful contraception, infertility, miscarriage, etc. But, unless one is proven to be sterile, the fact remains. Henceforth, if the child is unwanted by either would-be parent, causal-related decisions must be made beforehand. The female at any given point during the pregnancy (if one results from the sex act) she may choose logically speaking, not necessarily legally) to terminate the pregnancy inasmuch as the fetus is viewed as functioning as an organ of the mother’s body, whereas the male has only until the sex act to decide whether he either desires a resultant child or not. The female has until birth because that organism is not separate from her body (it is an organ thereof) until birthed. The male’s decision is made at the point of ejaculation into the vagina (as this is the culmination of the sex act and ultimately the means by which humans attempt to reproduce) – his part is done.
Having a child – bringing a whole new life into the world – is such a big deal it is a wonder so many humans do not seem to view it as such. Unfortunately, the fact that it is not always viewed as much of a serious topic is evidenced in the way so many children are raised.
The symbiotic nature of priming and synchronicity
Due to individual ideospheres, personal time-binding colors all memes that are integrated into said ideospheres. All previously held memes and experiential memes / experiences are affected by this Korzybskian time-binding and priming and affect how each individual’s reality-tunnel evolves with each newly acquired concept.
My basic dichotomy here is this: memes = concepts; experiential memes = percepts / concepts about experience (which are understood sensorially, and hence, only understood in terms of the[relatively] few sensory perceptions both perceived and remembered thusly).
The distinction may thus be made that memes (going with the Dawkinsian view) are ideas / concepts which are transmitted from one individual (host) to another individual (although fidelity will never be perfect due to each individual’s widely varying reality-tunnels), and hence, the qualifier ‘experiential’ for experientially acquired concepts that an individual may hold / acquired via their own experience with res extensa (excluding of course, those experiences which were those of directly [or maybe indirectly also] experiences of receiving memes from another individual either explicitly or implicitly – i.e. conversation or reading of books, respectively; both directly and indirectly – i.e. communicated or imitated, respectively). This dichotomy may be further understood as those which are acquired via symbols and those acquired directly through observation (of behavior or phenomena in res extensa, i.e. of others).
This does seem to remain somewhat counter-intuitive, especially as all acquisition of information (regardless of its qualifications as memetic or not, notwithstanding personal preference in the definition thereof) is experiential (even so-called intuited information by my standards).
Relevant to this topic, I also believe that the subjectivity / objectivity dichotomy is most clearly explained as res cogitans (subjective being that which exists in the mind) and res extensa (that which exists in objective reality apart from any one – or multiple – particular consciousness(es) measuring said objective reality through any form of measuring [which in itself affects the measured aspect(s) of objective reality / res extensa]) Of course, the Universe is always ‘measuring’ (per Seife, et al.).
All this said, we must remain mindful of the inherent wholeness and unity of existence (including res cogitans, since all minds are extant within res extensa) and that our perception defines fragmentation and ‘subsystemization’ of the Universe via categorical perception. We thusly ‘choose’ how to perceive our Universe (both via conditioning and imprinting of our reality-tunnels, not to mention Consensus Reality in general) and how to fragment into categorical perceptions res extensa into res cogitans for the purposes of conceptualized understanding of our sensory perceptions. Furthermore, the symbol-systems we develop to understand and communicate our conceptions are arbitrary.
To summarize, there exists an objective reality (res extensa) which we perceive via our senses (and thus measure) which we form concepts about (res cogitans). This res extensa is a unity, a whole although we perceive the distinctions in patterns which make this up and we arbitrarily categorize fragmented subsystems within the whole (which, if nothing else, enables us to make sense of the various aspects of the Universe which we sensorially perceive, as well as our theoretical models of many other aspects).
Any relationship or organization which is to last amongst the complexity of its environment must be an evolutionarily stable system. It will either evolve itself into an ESS or it will fail and become extinct so to speak.
In an increasingly complex, and hence volatile, world both relationships and organizations must adapt to given environmental situations / circumstances in order to survive. This requires properly functioning feedback loops and self-correction. The advantage relationships and organizations have over nature is that they have the faculty of intelligence and reason to aid them in this process. The given system(s) must take signals coming from both inside and outside the system and gather meaning from them and thusly (correctly or incorrectly) respond accordingly in order to adapt to any new situation. This is an ongoing process that takes place at nearly all times at which the relationship or organization is functioning. A good example would be conversation itself or day-to-day business.
The difference that is delineated by consciousness and/or self-referentiality between genetically affected aspects of life and memetically affected aspects of life. Suggested by both Dawkins (in the final chapter of The Selfish Gene) and earlier by William James, particularly in his speech commemorating Shaw’s Boston monument. Whereas genetically affected behavior seems to (by its implicit / implicate nature) play its roles with more subtlety, memetically affected behavior too seems (once ingrained) to be difficult to distinguish as such without careful speculation and analysis.
Is there then a strict demarcation between the two (keeping in mind that genetic evolution itself is responsible for the capacity for memes in the first place) or might it be possible that epigenetics plays some kind of role of corpus callosum – a specie of liaison between the two.
The hitherto nascent study of epigenetics is currently suggesting that memetically affected behavior may play a part in recoding the genome, via the epigenome, which entails a generational change subsequent to reproduction.
Being ‘successful’ in a productive / creative endeavor requires self-discipline and hard work and this is why, I think, that the trying, difficult, sometimes depressive stage of ‘paying ones dues’ is often so formative in the life of those who are creatively, productively successful. It oftentimes requires a time period of stressful ‘do or die’ situations to instill the necessary character traits. For some reason, the causality involved between the desire to have or do something and what it takes to acquire or achieve it seems to be missed by a fairly large percentage of the population. This invokes all sorts of parallels with alchemy's Chapel Perilous and Prigogine's dissipative structures...one could even divulge into the ESS model from this perspective (at a later date).
So much of life is affected, if not dictated by fear. Either fear of pain, death, or just what others think of you (which according to Howard Bloom in Global Brain may be the most debilitating fear of all), but fear nonetheless. There are obvious reasons. Fear of death – you want to live long enough to procreate (or your genes want you to). But not just genetically, but also memetically insofar as you want to finish your intellectual endeavors so that you may gain immortality via meme, not just gene. Most hindrances in people’s lives boil down to fear in some, or multiple, forms.
Cultural evolution as benchmarking new paradigms by way of counter-cultural ‘advances’ becoming mainstream. Whereas those who may consider themselves the ‘progenitors’ of any cultural ‘advance’ (the vanguard of the counter-culture, if you will) tend to have negative attitudes towards said cultural advances taking hold in the mainstream, it should be noted that the paradigm shift leads to cultural evolution for the society as a whole and the watering down is inherent in that process. It should, in my opinion, be seen in a positive light therefore because of the overall progress made by the society. The society, by evolving, is better in its adaptability in terms of how it can face further problems and challenges and hence we can say that there is progress.
Man is not born with purpose. Man may or may not choose a purpose for himself. This purpose(s) may change at will. We can play any number of different roles that serve one purpose or another. What we choose in any given circumstance depends on our metaprogramming, how we have been imprinted and whether we have the capability to realize when and how our imprints affect our behavior and whether we should act counter to what our imprints would ‘have’ us do. This is why Gurdjieff’s self-observation is important to the Great Work, it is because it enables us to realize the otherwise subliminal, subconscious behaviors and thought processes that we enact on a constant basis: why do we do what we do?
As the pragmatists would put it (Charles Sanders Peirce in particular I believe – not sure, check on) the probabilistic predictability of your actions from one given moment to another is what makes you who you are – if you always acted totally chaotically and random you would be considered to have no personality at all (as the Existentialists would put it, you are what you do).
Inversely, your reality tunnel, the way you see the world, may also not be in accordance with ‘proper functioning’ (another Gurdjieff / Ouspensky concept) and the Great Work must lead you through the analysis of all aspects, your ecology, of your ideospheric conceptions / philosophy.
As we accumulate beliefs / concepts in general, we develop a kind of personal time-binding phenomenon, whereas Korzybski’s is a generational time-binding mechanism for memes. Korzybski’s time-binding function in the context of post-postmodernism.
It is important to note that res extensa affects our subjective experience and how. Objective reality exists ‘apart’ from us (although we are part of it). Our perceptions thereof, via our senses, are conceptualized in our brains and those conceptions help create our reality tunnels. Our reality tunnels in turn affect how we respond to our perceptions. Every concept in our ideosphere colors how we integrate each new concept we receive or develop (memetic reception or memeogenesis respectively).
We need to analyze what our concepts are in order to realize how our ideospheres affect new concepts as well as our responses to perceptions. Seeing as how we have reality tunnels which affect how we view the world (i.e. how we respond to our perceptions) we need to understand what our reality tunnels are; what they are comprised of. We do this by analyzing our metaprogramming and finding our imprints (what they are, how they affect our programming, whether they should be changed, deleted, dealt with at all, etc.); not only looking at what our concepts are (what our ideosphere is comprised of), but also how they affect our responses to perceptions and how our imprinted metaprograms affect our way of integrating new concepts.
All these things affect how we give meaning to the representations we have in our mind of the sensorially perceived objective realities of res extensa. They affect our concepts of quality and how we feel we should behave (our behavioral strategies) in order to achieve certain outcomes.
It is important to find out what our programming is (via imprint) insofar as it dictates what our responses are to our perceptions of res extensa. We may see a gray building and our response is negative – sadness, for instance – and it makes us depressed – i.e. our hormonal secretions may increase or decrease (depending on which hormones) and change our overall mood which affects our reality tunnel. We may see a gray building and the inverse happens and we become happy – ‘this gray building reminds me of the abilities of the mind of man’.
The way we process the perceptions we receive via our senses is affected by our metaprogramming/reality tunnels. If we irrationally respond to certain perceptions then we must chunk down until we find the imprint, i.e. why we respond as we do, in order to change our responses because our physiology affects the way we respond to perceptions and vice versa.
If we perceive something in res extensa which does not threaten us in reality, but ‘triggers’ something in our brain which causes us to respond with panic and subsequently triggers the appropriate physical responses for panic via the parasympathetic system, i.e. quick breathing, sweat, inability to focus on anything but the situation at hand – all evolutionarily stable responses when the threat is real. But when these responses are not appropriate this is not an evolutionarily stable approach to said situation. It is thusly necessary to find the imprint which has caused the brain to react to such perceptions so one can change this.
One’s metaprogramming has been such that ‘it feels’ that this response is appropriate because it has always worked in the past (even though the conscious mind may not agree) and so it does not change the response to the signal. Once you can change what originally caused you to react a certain way to a certain perception then you in essence (at least in theory) change the ‘coding’ of the metaprogram which instantiates the irrational response to said perception.
The concept of indigo children as those born outside of Consensus Trance/Reality; i.e. born awakened. The idea that they may or may not choose to enhance their awareness or ‘fall back asleep’.
Lockean empiricism (tabula rasa, etc.) and liberal individualism (both in terms of atomism – i.e., as an analog to Newtonian physics – as well as in terms of individual rights – freedom / liberty, property rights, libertarianism, etc.
Instead of saying that atomistic individuals are nothing without the group in which they exist (holism) look for ways to understand that they do have meaning as separate entities (the Law of Identity) but (cybernetically) are affected by their environment via feedback loops and adaptation (according to their [empirical] perceptions of res extensa). Whereas agreed upon meanings for any number of memes rests upon the larger social framework in which they exist this does not necessarily connote the inability of individuals to gather meaning on their own without a socially agreed upon ‘consensus’ meaning’s existence.
Whereas, phenomenal systems of meaning such as language are functionally worthless unless there is an agreed upon meaning for any given code being employed from sender to receiver, and vice versa, it does not at the same time negate the possibility of an individual developing a system of meaning that only said individual understands. If nothing else, it may be that qualia fall underneath this category of systems of meaning insofar as ‘redness’ can only, in practical terms, hold meaning for an individual qua that individual in so much as ‘redness’ can be considered a meme in the first place.
Individual entities in objective existence are perceived by individual consciousnesses who, in turn, develop concepts thereof via the employment of reason and thusly are given meaning in the mind of the beholder who then (through the apparatus of language) conveys (or attempts to) that meaning to another individual. Hence, a consensus meaning may be achieved, but not without the individual consciousness first developing meaning prior to the memetic transmission from one individual to the next; ergo, memeogenesis. QED.
One point that must be made here though is the arbitrariness in deciding upon given meanings.
It seems (unless I am missing something somewhere or looking at this from the wrong angle) that the holists are applying a false dichotomy to liberal individualism. I believe the appropriate approach is to acknowledge both aspects for they both bear relevance to the way actual existence plays out.
It makes the most sense to me to realize that individuals make up groups (i.e., society) and thus interact in groups – hence, societies are made up of individuals, yet individuals interact in societies. So we are interested in individuals and also how they interact with other individuals. But they are always acting as individuals. A mob may have a mentality, as it were, but that mentality is both shared by and affected by the individuals who comprise it. We can look (and should look) at both the individual parts of the system and the system itself.
The individual is always the ‘atomic’ lowest common denominator of any societal group. From within the individual you must look inwardly and outwardly to understand the makeup of said individual though. Both their environment and their genes effect ‘who they are’. Physical attributes are largely dictated by an individual’s genes, but their diet and habits also play a large role in how they turn out. One who exercises regularly will inherently have better toned muscles than one who does not. One with higher intake of particular vitamins and/or minerals will both appear and behave differently than someone with lower intake of said vitamins/minerals.
In terms of behavior and philosophy of life, one who abides by a strict diet and workout regimen may tend to have a more self-disciplined approach to life in other areas of their life as well, whereas someone who does not may be less disciplined in general. The amount of factors that play into all aspects of life are myriad, but not unchangeable (for the most part, at least).
28 June 2008
Dissipative Structures as Chapels Perilous and Such
Challenges create the opportunity for both increased awareness due to lessons learned when scrutinizing intellectually honest analysis and self-analysis is applied as well as the possibility for an increase in resilience. Research in psychological resilience began with studying children of schizophrenic parents – the realization being made that about 1/3 of the children actually became more able to cope with catastrophic situations; their Chapel Perilous being visited and conquered successfully. These trials of childhood helped shape their abilities in their formative years and unlocked the capacity to cope and even shine in situations that might otherwise lead to other collapse on the part of the individual stuck in said situation. Their ego-resiliency and ego-control was actually improved by their atmospheric conundrums.
This can be likened to Ilya Prigogine's dissipative structures which upon threshold-reaching perturbations cause the affected system to have to adapt - sink or swim.
The importance of putting your philosophy into action – otherwise what’s the point in developing it?
Individualism as a basis – think for yourself; act for yourself
The importance of self-motivation, and discipline – institutionalized education is not necessarily (especially in today’s world) going to give you a well-rounded, useful philosophy.
You are not born with purpose – you develop purpose. This is why it is so important to develop as informed a philosophical policy for living and decision making as possible.
On the one hand we do what we have to do to survive and reproduce – producing (and producing better products and ideas than others especially) enables us to survive and reproduce better (at least in a free-market society) for we can make a better living (and hence survive better – because the more financial means the easier it is to afford better food, shelter, protection, etc.), as well as find a better mate and hence, reproduce better.
Whereas surviving and reproducing better are both preferable in order to enjoy life whilst living it one must acquire the ability to appreciate (an art in itself).
Once you develop the ability to think for yourself and educate yourself with all the necessary knowledge (and start to develop ‘wisdom’) you can tackle (or at least begin to) the otherwise seemingly meaninglessness of life through balancing both the survival / reproduction aspects of life with the enjoyment / progress aspects (a further art in itself).
It is important to keep your ‘system of belief’ open-ended (Pancritical Rationalization) always allowing for new information to be applied if it fits in logically (i.e. it passes the rigorous analysis of reason and is found to be ‘true’). This is also why one must continue ones education both formally through actively seeking new knowledge through all forms of media as well as learning from experiences. This is why we must develop finely-tuned memetic filters both for traditional memes and experiential memes as experiences tend to affect our thinking via our subjective emotional responses to said experiences more so than the objective ‘intellectual’ responses we tend to have toward memes acquired through reading or conversation, although heated conversation tends to incur emotional responses for instance our bias toward being right for our own sake – what I call the ‘I want to be right all the time’ ego fallacy, or the Passionate Believer Fallacy.
Once we dogmatize our ideas and opinions we tend to lose conceptual validity and oftentimes validity of our actions as well.
The desire to control stems from fear. The more fear you can conquer the easier it is to enjoy life. This said, it is not always useful merely to conquer a fear, it is oftentimes useful to avoid that which causes the fear (or the object of fear more precisely) i.e. fear of death or painful injury. Conquest of fear should not lead to a subsequently haphazard lifestyle; it should not lend license to carelessness / recklessness.
I find it far more useful to first develop a system for thinking than a system of thinking. Once you have rules laid out for the gathering of knowledge, then you can go through knowledge only assimilating that which can be logically shown to be ‘true’. Next you must combine the ideas to conciliate a full, consistent philosophy which in itself is a framework for action in day-to-day life.
This can be likened to Ilya Prigogine's dissipative structures which upon threshold-reaching perturbations cause the affected system to have to adapt - sink or swim.
The importance of putting your philosophy into action – otherwise what’s the point in developing it?
Individualism as a basis – think for yourself; act for yourself
The importance of self-motivation, and discipline – institutionalized education is not necessarily (especially in today’s world) going to give you a well-rounded, useful philosophy.
You are not born with purpose – you develop purpose. This is why it is so important to develop as informed a philosophical policy for living and decision making as possible.
On the one hand we do what we have to do to survive and reproduce – producing (and producing better products and ideas than others especially) enables us to survive and reproduce better (at least in a free-market society) for we can make a better living (and hence survive better – because the more financial means the easier it is to afford better food, shelter, protection, etc.), as well as find a better mate and hence, reproduce better.
Whereas surviving and reproducing better are both preferable in order to enjoy life whilst living it one must acquire the ability to appreciate (an art in itself).
Once you develop the ability to think for yourself and educate yourself with all the necessary knowledge (and start to develop ‘wisdom’) you can tackle (or at least begin to) the otherwise seemingly meaninglessness of life through balancing both the survival / reproduction aspects of life with the enjoyment / progress aspects (a further art in itself).
It is important to keep your ‘system of belief’ open-ended (Pancritical Rationalization) always allowing for new information to be applied if it fits in logically (i.e. it passes the rigorous analysis of reason and is found to be ‘true’). This is also why one must continue ones education both formally through actively seeking new knowledge through all forms of media as well as learning from experiences. This is why we must develop finely-tuned memetic filters both for traditional memes and experiential memes as experiences tend to affect our thinking via our subjective emotional responses to said experiences more so than the objective ‘intellectual’ responses we tend to have toward memes acquired through reading or conversation, although heated conversation tends to incur emotional responses for instance our bias toward being right for our own sake – what I call the ‘I want to be right all the time’ ego fallacy, or the Passionate Believer Fallacy.
Once we dogmatize our ideas and opinions we tend to lose conceptual validity and oftentimes validity of our actions as well.
The desire to control stems from fear. The more fear you can conquer the easier it is to enjoy life. This said, it is not always useful merely to conquer a fear, it is oftentimes useful to avoid that which causes the fear (or the object of fear more precisely) i.e. fear of death or painful injury. Conquest of fear should not lead to a subsequently haphazard lifestyle; it should not lend license to carelessness / recklessness.
I find it far more useful to first develop a system for thinking than a system of thinking. Once you have rules laid out for the gathering of knowledge, then you can go through knowledge only assimilating that which can be logically shown to be ‘true’. Next you must combine the ideas to conciliate a full, consistent philosophy which in itself is a framework for action in day-to-day life.
22 June 2008
Adaptability and Corporate Urination
The greater ones ability to adapt, the more effective one becomes in more life situations. The more knowledge one has, the greater the possibility of greater adaptability. It is necessary for a wise, co-intelligent, overarching, (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) ecological view of each situation in order to employ the right methods of adaptability for each situation.
The key is responding appropriately to specific stimuli: correct response. Furthering ones awareness increases the ability to respond correctly. This requires having both awareness of ones environment and the events occurring at a given time; and also those likely to occur as a consequence to current events and the situation surrounding them as well as possible alternative responses to the situation(s) as it/they arise.
Knowledge of current situations and the ability to correctly respond results in greatly decreased stress as stress seems to stem from the frustration brought about by not knowing how to correctly respond to a situation or an event confronting an individual. An apparent inability to do anything about a seemingly negative situation too may be a stressor, but further awareness can either lead to possible responses (which can lead to a solution) or the summoning of the peace of mind that comes with an understanding of a situation and its probable consequences; i.e. when something is ‘out of ones control’ (or at least appears to be) and one is able to accept life as it happens and deal with the oncoming situations as they arise.
Having a fuller ability to deal with diverse situations (adaptability / flexibility) engenders self-efficacy, which when employed successfully, leads to increased self-esteem over time. Understanding leads to greater awareness which leads to the possibility of greater adaptability when in conjunction with humanistic conscience and the discipline in action that stems from it.
Along with dealing with situations as they arise, awareness can also help with avoiding situations which may be detrimental in the first place further allowing one to limit even possible stress from rearing its head. Doing away with self-illusions / -delusions enable one to deal with situations as they are, not as one wants or wishes them to be, which, in turn, gives the individual the best information to work with further enabling one to correctly respond.
Of course, this may be stressful, but if one opens ones mind and escapes from consensus reality, the opportunities for growth in awareness arise and, if taken, will allow for a greater ability to deal with said situations and correct response; i.e. adaptability / flexibility is possible.
Corporations Pissing on Free Market Capitalism via Adjudicated Anthropomorphisis
Is it the case that local governments would do better to hinder individual and group efforts to reinvigorate urban areas less than to attempt to aid in such enterprises? In other words, should they just stay out and not attempt to help implying that their attempted ‘help’ would actually impede any such progress, whereas inaction would be preferable to a successful outcome?
If corporate personhood were revoked, then corporate responsibility would cease to be a near-meaningless tagline in an investment brochure and would have actual ramifications in the real world. Increased personal responsibility and self-reliance necessitates more self-awareness on the part of the individual and hence the rate of both personal and social transformation grows at a more and more rapid pace.
The revocation of corporate personhood would lead to a decrease in unethical practices because the owners of corporations would be legally held liable in such matters as individuals. This would include the practice of lobbying and, hence, the corrupt relationships between government and business which has led to many of our current problems and subsequent frustrations.
The key is responding appropriately to specific stimuli: correct response. Furthering ones awareness increases the ability to respond correctly. This requires having both awareness of ones environment and the events occurring at a given time; and also those likely to occur as a consequence to current events and the situation surrounding them as well as possible alternative responses to the situation(s) as it/they arise.
Knowledge of current situations and the ability to correctly respond results in greatly decreased stress as stress seems to stem from the frustration brought about by not knowing how to correctly respond to a situation or an event confronting an individual. An apparent inability to do anything about a seemingly negative situation too may be a stressor, but further awareness can either lead to possible responses (which can lead to a solution) or the summoning of the peace of mind that comes with an understanding of a situation and its probable consequences; i.e. when something is ‘out of ones control’ (or at least appears to be) and one is able to accept life as it happens and deal with the oncoming situations as they arise.
Having a fuller ability to deal with diverse situations (adaptability / flexibility) engenders self-efficacy, which when employed successfully, leads to increased self-esteem over time. Understanding leads to greater awareness which leads to the possibility of greater adaptability when in conjunction with humanistic conscience and the discipline in action that stems from it.
Along with dealing with situations as they arise, awareness can also help with avoiding situations which may be detrimental in the first place further allowing one to limit even possible stress from rearing its head. Doing away with self-illusions / -delusions enable one to deal with situations as they are, not as one wants or wishes them to be, which, in turn, gives the individual the best information to work with further enabling one to correctly respond.
Of course, this may be stressful, but if one opens ones mind and escapes from consensus reality, the opportunities for growth in awareness arise and, if taken, will allow for a greater ability to deal with said situations and correct response; i.e. adaptability / flexibility is possible.
Corporations Pissing on Free Market Capitalism via Adjudicated Anthropomorphisis
Is it the case that local governments would do better to hinder individual and group efforts to reinvigorate urban areas less than to attempt to aid in such enterprises? In other words, should they just stay out and not attempt to help implying that their attempted ‘help’ would actually impede any such progress, whereas inaction would be preferable to a successful outcome?
If corporate personhood were revoked, then corporate responsibility would cease to be a near-meaningless tagline in an investment brochure and would have actual ramifications in the real world. Increased personal responsibility and self-reliance necessitates more self-awareness on the part of the individual and hence the rate of both personal and social transformation grows at a more and more rapid pace.
The revocation of corporate personhood would lead to a decrease in unethical practices because the owners of corporations would be legally held liable in such matters as individuals. This would include the practice of lobbying and, hence, the corrupt relationships between government and business which has led to many of our current problems and subsequent frustrations.
19 June 2008
Ego and E-Prime
A Huxley: ‘We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves.’ – The Doors of Perception
‘… there is an inside to experience as well as an outside.’ – The Doors of Perception
Work to reduce the ego. Thinking and speaking in E-Prime may help this further as you begin to realize the uncertainty of existence and our subsequent reliance on probabilities. This is all further aided when you can get to the point of realization that we must allow other people to live their lives as they please, as long as they do not attempt coercion / violence against others. We may wish for others to act differently than they may act, but the sooner we realize that they have the freedom to act as they please we can do away with much suffering. If you are preoccupied with how someone else feels about you, then you are wasting your self and your time, effort, and abilities.
The symbiotic relationship between ego reduction and the use of English Prime (E-Prime) in speech and thought (leading to subsequently according action). When we tie ourselves to statements of absolute certainty – ‘it is this way’ or ‘it is not this way’ – we ‘take up the cause’ for its truth or falsity, existence or nonexistence. This state of affairs leads us into the trap of requiring objective existence, or res extensa, to actually be how we want, wish or expect it to be through our claims of certainty.
This situation is immensely heightened once one allows emotionalism to come into play. Once one gives oneself to their emotions in regards to statements of certainty then reason is effectively shut out of the process of decision-making in terms of speech and action choices.
The more one can reduce ones ego, the less one ties oneself to certainty (or claims thereof) for the reason that a reduced ego is not as concerned with what others regard to be true or false. One can escape the emotionalist proclamations that help enlarged egos attempt to realize their own self-fulfilling prophecies.
Prolonged engagement in certainty claiming will eventually lead to the dogmatic, blindly faithful certitude which often requires outright denial of objective, empirical evidence out of hand and the logic, reasoning and scientific method with which said evidence is acquired and integrated into ones conceptualization. The ‘Indigo Children’ of the ‘Dead-Baby-Joke Generation’ are inherently better guarded against this kind of approach, this dereliction of critical thinking, to the certainty / uncertainty dilemma due to an intrinsic disregard of cultural heritage for tradition’s sake. Cultural-generational time-binding has brought on an atmosphere of skepticism for all things which are believed unquestioningly and retained on the basis of faith alone.
Akin to ego reduction is the opportunity for individuals to realize that all other individuals are both responsible to make their own choices and are free to do so as well. If one tries to coerce another into thinking or doing something against their will then one is trespassing on that individual’s liberty. Every individual is free, but also responsible for their own choices as long as those choices do not lead to actions which attempt to coerce or inhibit the freedoms of others. When one can come to terms with the fact that others are free to do as they choose they can then loose themselves from the (almost exclusively emotionalistic) self-laden embittered torment that results from concerning themselves with other individuals’ actions. If one approaches every interpersonal interaction with the mindset that this other individual may or may not agree with their wants, wishes, desires or expectations (not to mention ideals, belief systems, etc.) then they will not feel let down due to their emotional detachment regarding the interaction’s outcome.
If parents were to treat their children as free, intelligent individuals with responsibility for their actions many psychoanalysts and other similarly employed counselors may go out of business. In my opinion the role of parents would be well-advised to remain in an epistemological realm – guiding the child in the ways of how to think clearly and developing intellectual honesty fortified by diligent, disciplined action in line with the aforementioned skill sets instead of telling them what to think.
Failure to apply E-Prime results in what are in Neuro-Linguistic Programming known as lost performatives, i.e. stating opinions as facts.
18 June 2008
Fanaticism and Memetics
RH: ‘I think what fractal geometry shows us is that the Universe is uncertain. This is the problem with fanaticism – they are looking (in vain) for absolute certainty (a way that it is always) when there is none necessarily.’ [paraphrase]
(Consult and annotate Marinoff Therapy For The Sane, Fromm Man For Himself and Bloom Global Brain on belonging and finding identity amongst groups as well). Anyone looking for absolute truth must look at the contexts in which their subject matter resides. We know that existence exists and that consciousness is. The nature of both quantum mechanics and its similar conclusions of Eastern religion (consult Robert Anton Wilson’s Maybe Logic, E-Prime, David Bohm, Gary Zukav’s Dancing Wu Li Masters, etc.) have shown us via Heisenberg (and fractal geometry / Seife’s Decoding the Universe) that we are becoming aware of things that we cannot be certain of.
Whereas I believe that there probably is a system of natural laws that are universal (at least in our [humanly-] perceivable dimensions), including an overarching ‘set of laws’ to all dimensions and proposed multiverses (although they may be different for said dimensions and multiverses) I am, by stating that, invoking probability theory in and of itself, i.e. implying chaos and complexity which, we are finding, is inherent in the Universe, and henceforth, nature. This seems to be closely tied into Wilson’s Maybe Logic, which Bell’s Theorem, Schrödinger’s paradox, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky Theory, etc. also implies. Furthermore, Zen kôans and other strange loops (Douglas Hofstadter) also reinforce this.
Fanatics hold the worst kind of dogma, for not only is their dogmatized system(s) of belief a closed system, they are usually held in the extreme. As all social and political common sense shows, any extreme tends to hold many blatantly false tenets (even if there is some truth in them) which require blind faith (see George H Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God, and Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, not to mention Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism..., Thomas Paine, etc. for why this is mental poison).
Blind faith is necessary if one chooses arbitrarily to believe something for which there is no, or trace amount of, empirical evidence for the existence or truth of something, or for which there is more than sufficient amount of evidence to suggest its falsity. Uncertainty is the wrench in the dogmatic fanatic’s machinery. If the specter of uncertainty arises then the several implications that uncertainty brings with it can and are fatal to irrationally held beliefs and can cause the fanatics worst nightmare – skepticism.
Fanatics develop and hold fast to dogma because it asserts absolute truth as a placeholder for things that we cannot (at least presently) know for certain via empirical evidence, or in place of scientifically and logically proven facts with which they choose not to agree for one reason or another – usually fear or discomfort with said facts’ implications regarding their life and their previously held beliefs thereof.
Uncertainty is viewed as dangerous by the fanatic because it sews the seed of doubt: ‘Maybe my strongly held view is incorrect, or only one of many ways to view this issue.’
Skepticism leads one to a degree of agnosticism (not necessarily in regards to supernatural phenomena) which places, at least temporarily, an individual in a position of uncertainty. What one must be able to do is:
1.) achieve the ability to be at peace with not knowing certain things for sure (see Alan Watts); and
2.) develop ways to discover the truth (see the scientific method) of things which we can know for sure.
This also ties in with memetics, semiotics, etc. insofar as we can study memetics and semiotics to look at the conceptual engineering, both blatant and unconscious, employed to coerce people into believing (i.e. using blind faith) something for which they have no reason (pun intended) for believing. Without properly developed memetic filters and logical faculties one is unable to apply Pancritical Rationalism to sensory data and conceptual data in a sound manner.
View everything as a system that may be understand to some degree as a rule-based (in some way or another) and, in some way, goal-oriented. There is a hierarchical systems-based format to all existence, and oftentimes, a heterarchical one as well. The ‘rules’ by which said systems operate are more explicit than others due to varying degrees of apparent orderliness and chaos; i.e. varying degrees of complexity. The more implicit it seems, the more this may be due to our current inabilities of observation of particular phenomena – usually technological, but possibly some degree of intuition (not sure about the latter though).
Look at why the systems approach is viable / legitimate. The phenomenon of systems being similar qualities that allow the study thereof to bear fruits.
It may be useful to look at the overlapping nature of these systems – the phase transitions between component parts. Also, to look for similarity between disparate (at least seemingly so) systems. Possibly self-similarity in hierarchical systems. General similarities heterarchically. It may also be useful to look at scaling (which goes along with general similarity and self-similarity).
Stress the importance of value judgments in rational decision-making. We place value on everything around us in our lives. It behooves us to consciously understand the difference between necessities and luxuries. Also, the contexts in which we subjectively place things in our practical application of these value judgments (in terms of differentiating between necessities and luxuries). For instance, there are the ‘bare’, or primary, necessities: air, water, food, etc.; and there are luxuries: fancy clothes, jewelry, accessories, hobby paraphernalia, etc.
But we also have a dichotomy in the difference between primary necessities and contextual necessities; i.e. (in the modern, Western world) transportation to and from your job, not to mention education (which may or may not directly influence the type of job you do or wish to do). Of course, this in itself is a, or can be, matter of value judgment – that is, what type of job you wish to do.
In other words, you may live on a farm, but have the aptitude and desire to be an engineer. Thusly, an education is required to become an engineer and in lieu of an educational institution coming to you (on your farm) you would (in the context of your decision to become an engineer) be necessitated to travel to an educational institution to receive said schooling.
If your desire is to be a musician, you would either need the skills and resources first to make an instrument or the trading power (monetary or otherwise) to acquire an instrument which implies means of achieving / acquiring some level of financial achievement and possibly transportation (either for you or for some delivery service of sorts which also implies means of communication thereof) which also has to be funded by said delivery service operators and their business partners in a whole array of different business pursuits invoking TANSTAAFL (Robert Heinlein’s ‘There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch’) and the Broken Window Fallacy.
My point here is that the complexity in which everyday life functions, nothing is free and all manner of commerce is intertwined and overlapping. Globalism only increases this state and globalism is itself increasing.
Restructuring of memetics by looking at pre-memes and including communication and information theory. Applying Peikoff / Rand’s view of knowledge / epistemology (i.e. context, etc.) so that we may take the systems approach. Look at how concepts both are created and how they evolve (emergence and development). And then look at how they are ‘spread’ (the current realm of memetics). Also, look at how they evolve due to feedback (systems feedback loops, etc.) – i.e. through discourse (look at Bohm’s ideas on true discourse).
Psychology also plays into this strongly insofar as how people react and digest new concepts, new memes. An individual’s personal psychology and overall philosophy will affect how they do this. In other words, their existing ideosphere will give a specific context to each new meme and degrees of open-mindedness vary from individual to individual and from moment to moment for each individual. The degree of open-mindedness can be improved upon and the consistency can be increased, but it is also important to increase ones memetic filter through logic, reasoning, empiricism, Pancritical Rationalism, etc. This is what necessitates the development of a method for gaining new knowledge and dealing with it – the so-called memetic filtration system which is the method / program of autodidacticism I wish to invoke through aforementioned practices.
Make use of all possible resources to educate oneself. When you run across something about which you do not know, follow up on it and do the research to gain knowledge thereof. This tends to have tangential effects (as illustrated by resources such as Wikipedia, but also any encyclopedic, reference-laden resources) which lead you in all sorts of directions you might not have previously gone in.
This method of research tends to have exponential consequences in ones search for knowledge. Whilst looking for knowledge one is behooved to apply memetic filtration at all turns to avoid misinformation and catch disinformation always looking to uncover previously gained mis- / disinformation as such (by looking at context and applying Pancritical Rationalism). Intellectual honesty is also key to taking this approach to its fullest potential and avoiding any hints of fanaticism and blind faith which are antithesis to logic, reasoning, empiricism, the scientific method and Pancritical Rationalism.
All of existence is matter and energy (and vice versa per Einstein) which acts according to rules (thermodynamics, electromagnetism, gravity) and organizes as information into systems (and out of systems – entropy; seeking equilibrium).
Challenges create the opportunity for both increased awareness due to lessons learned when scrutinizing intellectually honest analysis and self-analysis is applied as well as the possibility for an increase in resilience. Research in psychological resilience began with studying children of schizophrenic parents – the realization being made that about 1/3 of the children actually became more able to cope with catastrophic situations; their Chapel Perilous being visited and conquered successfully. These trials of childhood helped shape their abilities in their formative years and unlocked the capacity to cope and even shine in situations that might otherwise lead to other collapse on the part of the individual stuck in said situation. Their ego-resiliency and ego-control was actually improved by their atmospheric conundrums.
There appears to be two levels of attainment or attempting to find happiness. The first is the superficial, consensus reality goal of happiness from a viewpoint of a more immediate, seemingly more rational approach in the form of getting what you want (now); what you’re raised to want. This form of happiness tends to include a more base, materialistic sense of happiness, the run-of-the-mill ‘American dream’, the typical desire to have a good paying job – regardless of the satisfaction derived thereof – and marrying the individual you want to. It usually implies getting a college degree, driving a nice car, purchasing a house, raising, ‘good, successful’, children, etc. It includes attaining the usual portfolio of status symbols which allow people to fit in with the herd of middle class Joneses.
There is a need for calm to allow for mental clarity allowing in turn for focus which opens the door for productive thought and the productive actions.
Reading biographies can be useful insofar as noticing the parallels between the subject and ones own self as it is easier to see the faults in others often times. Understanding the psychology of the topic of a biography can aid in understanding oneself if one is willing to look.
Similarities and differences between information theory and memetics. Can memes be measured as bits? Likenesses with phonemes (compare with Charles Seife in Decoding the Universe and Erik Davis in Techgnosis). Compare Stevan Harnad and my concept of atomic memes. Maybe look at Chomsky and Pinker along with other linguistic theories. As well as other cognitive theories and approaches to understanding what degree ideas are physical phenomena.
Maybe the better idea is to leave the concept of memes as Richard Dawkins (in The Selfish Gene) and Howard Bloom (in Global Brain) explain them and divert back to simply tackling the already sizable task of understanding, explaining and integrating an epistemological theory of concepts. Within this there is Ayn Rand/Leonard Peikoff’s theory of concept formation and Dawkins/Susan Blackmore’s approach to the whole idea which by default includes (not just focuses on) memes.
All related theories of communication (not just verbal and written linguistic theories) are important to developing a cohesive and ‘proper’ theory of conceptualization (both generation and transmission).
The importance of putting your philosophy into action – otherwise what’s the point in developing it?
Individualism as a basis – think for yourself; act for yourself; be responsible for yourself (i.e. take responsibility for your actions
The importance of self-motivation, and discipline – institutionalized education is not necessarily (especially in today’s world) going to give you a well-rounded, useful philosophy.
It is necessary to increase your knowledge of as many things as possible to give you the most informed outlook as this increases your ability to make intelligent decisions.
Marketing will exist as long as there are products or ideas to market. Marketing does have a negative effect insofar as certain products, ideas are marketed which are not necessarily any better than competing products, ideas but, due to their better marketing schemata, may sell better and henceforth cause better products and ideas not to survive or at least do poorly in the market (cheating market Darwinianism). For this reason, we must realize that in an evolutionary environment, products and ideas are very closely linked in a symbiotic way as they compete to survive and replicate.
Whereas intelligence seems to be rather inborn, self-motivation, discipline, work ethic seem to be learned and what good is intelligence without the other attributes? Two sides of the nature/nurture dichotomy.
The 20th Century saw the beginning and collapse of socialism (/communism) as well as the emergence of the voluntary ceding of individualism en masse.
Reality TV as a method of voyeurism, vicarious living and exhibition.
You are not born with purpose – you develop purpose. This is why it is so important to develop as informed a philosophical policy for living and decision making as possible.
On the one hand we do what we have to do to survive and reproduce – producing (and producing better products and ideas than others especially) enables us to survive and reproduce better (at least in a free-market society) for we can make a better living (and hence survive better - because the more financial means the easier it is to afford better food, shelter, protection, etc.), as well as find a better mate and hence, reproduce better.
Whereas surviving and reproducing better are both preferable in order to enjoy life whilst living it one must acquire the ability to appreciate (an art in itself).
Once you develop the ability to think for yourself and educate yourself with all the necessary knowledge (and start to develop ‘wisdom’) you can tackle (or at least begin to) the otherwise seemingly meaninglessness of life through balancing both the survival / reproduction aspects of life with the enjoyment / progress aspects (a further art in itself).
It is important to keep your ‘system of belief’ open-ended (Pancritical Rationalization) always allowing for new information to be applied if it fits in logically (i.e. it passes the rigorous analysis of reason and is found to be ‘true’). This is also why one must continue ones education both formally through actively seeking new knowledge through all forms of media as well as learning from experiences. This is why we must develop finely-tuned memetic filters both for traditional memes and experiential memes as experiences tend to affect our thinking via our subjective emotional responses to said experiences more so than the objective ‘intellectual’ responses we tend to have toward memes acquired through reading or conversation, although heated conversation tends to incur emotional responses for instance our bias toward being right for our own sake – what I call the ‘I want to be right all the time’ ego fallacy, or the Passionate Believer Fallacy.
Once we dogmatize our ideas and opinions we tend to lose conceptual validity and oftentimes validity of our actions as well.
Systems theory is very important to study (as is cybernetics) for the reason that everything in ‘concrete’ existence is part of and made up of systems. And it only helps in our understanding overall to understand the interactions of said systems and their parts.
The study of mythology is an extension of the studies of memetics and psychology, both the ideas in and of themselves, but also how those ideas affect the minds of those who hold them (to be true?).
The desire to control stems from fear. The more fear you can conquer the easier it is to enjoy life. This said, it is not always useful merely to conquer a fear, it is oftentimes useful to avoid that which causes the fear (or the object of fear more precisely) i.e. fear of death or painful injury. Conquest of fear should not lead to a subsequently haphazard lifestyle; it should not lend license to carelessness / recklessness.
I find it far more useful to first develop a system for thinking than a system of thinking. Once you have rules laid out for the gathering of knowledge, then you can go through knowledge only assimilating that which can be logically shown to be ‘true’. Next you must combine the ideas to conciliate a full, consistent philosophy which in itself is a framework for action in day-to-day life.
The major problems of Western society I currently am led to believe now will only be solved if a free market is allowed to run its course and force people to end the policies which allow these problems to run rampant throughout society. Broad, sweeping government programs do not offer answers, they create self-serving bureaucracies. Federal coercion will not create a utopia. When government enables victimilogy and encourages (either directly or indirectly; on purpose or otherwise) taking advantage of the welfare state then these phenomena will do nothing but increase exponentially. When government attempts to educate a vast populous it will necessarily drop the standards that judge its performance in so doing. When governments make war on other governments / organizations without popular support, that populous will not willingly put themselves at the government’s behest insofar as fighting for said government.
D Coupland (p 204 Hey Nostradamus!):
A philosophy that seeks first to develop and then to implement a method of thought which enables one to discover the proper methods of action and decision-making in life – developing a philosophy of life. Striving for maximum understanding and awareness of existence, ourselves included.
Realizing the systems-based nature of existence – i.e. the Universe as metasystem (with the possibility of multiple universe – parallel or otherwise, as well as ‘ana-Euclidean’ dimensions) and the ‘objects’ that inhabit said Universe as systems within and making up the Universe. Taking this starting point and digressing down the hierarchy / heterarchy and working to understand these systems and consequent sub-systems (and the systems, sub-systems and super/supra-systems they themselves compose). Including the Objectivist axioms which allow us to logically look at these systems – Existence, Consciousness, Identity. Seeking to understand the nature of human knowledge insofar as we attribute meaning, and other epistemologically related topics – context, information theory, symbols, language / semantics, mathematics, etc. Moving on toward understanding the workings of humans both as individuals and groups (large and small). Understanding the Universe we know and see on a daily basis from physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, neurophysiology, etc.
From here we can continue on to aspects of ethics, ‘spirituality’, politics, Existentialism, (Anarcho-/Anarcho-Capitalist-) Libertarianism, and all other self- and social-transformative systems.
We can start to see the overlap in all of these disparate fields of knowledge and we hope to employ the concilience of all from the beginning, but how? That is the key to developing this as a viably transferable system-of-belief / philosophy / (school of thought?). Looking at this conundrum from a memetic point of view, we see that there are not necessarily any particularly remarkable / outstanding hooks with which to attract others. As a whole I believe that the system (incomplete though it is at present) is superior to most dogmatic approaches to complete systems of philosophy, but the problem seems to lie just there – ‘as a whole’.
The system itself has no spiffy one-liners, not to mention that it is an open-system (employing a diligent regimen of Pancritical Rationalism and the unending search for further applicable knowledge). The system does not claim to glean any new, previously ‘occult’ knowledge from any breakthrough personal revelations or discoveries. It is the grouping together of a large store of human knowledge and theories. This is probably more on par with the Rosicrucians’ program of disseminating knowledge in tiers and conciliating them as one progresses. This in itself is likely to discourage a great many if any were ever to be interested in the first place.
I believe the system needs to be worked out to where the different modes of knowledge can be elucidated in digestible chunks, but also in a progression that makes sense (both in itself and together with parallel ‘lessons’). This will require (not ironically) employing the very information we are looking to include in the system in order to figure out how to teach it to others. So how do we start?
I currently believe that we need to start with the axiomatic primaries. Peikoff’s organizational methods used in his Introduction to Objectivism is so far the best model I have yet found myself. Starting with the aforementioned axioms and then branching off into the different fields cross-referencing heterarchically.
The preference here might be to find specialists in each field for the intellectual heavy-lifting required by some of the more esoteric of the included fields of knowledge – quantum mechanics, neuropsychology, etc. But then would it not make just as much sense to develop a reading list with associated texts to help integrate the knowledge gained from each book / paper with the whole?
Of course with this comes the setback that not all specified fields have well-written, amateur-friendly, literature available with which to start, not to mention further reading which can help the reader progress from beginner to intermediate and on and on. The ideal would be to have to know what is written on each subject with an understanding and integration of and with the whole already in mind at the time of writing. But is this in the least bit (at present the present at least) realistic? Paradigmatic Inquiry so far in lieu of anything better seems to be the only plausible outlet for something on this scale and currently that too seems undoable to a large extent.
How to encourage? How to motivate? Where is the incentive? First of all, must contributors be of like mind? Whereas I do not feel they must, I cannot at this time prove otherwise so this issue will remain for now. Many present contacts do not seem terribly motivated to contribute. The work needs to be done, but at present seems to require multiple individuals working in tandem. That is the ideal I strive for. There have been countless individuals, many of them knowledgeable of one another’s work but not on an ideally sufficient scale, to wit, my proposition.
The realization can be made that we are inherently mechanistic animals which can become more and more aware. Gurdjieff attributes to his father the belief that one is not born with a soul but can develop one.
(Consult and annotate Marinoff Therapy For The Sane, Fromm Man For Himself and Bloom Global Brain on belonging and finding identity amongst groups as well). Anyone looking for absolute truth must look at the contexts in which their subject matter resides. We know that existence exists and that consciousness is. The nature of both quantum mechanics and its similar conclusions of Eastern religion (consult Robert Anton Wilson’s Maybe Logic, E-Prime, David Bohm, Gary Zukav’s Dancing Wu Li Masters, etc.) have shown us via Heisenberg (and fractal geometry / Seife’s Decoding the Universe) that we are becoming aware of things that we cannot be certain of.
Whereas I believe that there probably is a system of natural laws that are universal (at least in our [humanly-] perceivable dimensions), including an overarching ‘set of laws’ to all dimensions and proposed multiverses (although they may be different for said dimensions and multiverses) I am, by stating that, invoking probability theory in and of itself, i.e. implying chaos and complexity which, we are finding, is inherent in the Universe, and henceforth, nature. This seems to be closely tied into Wilson’s Maybe Logic, which Bell’s Theorem, Schrödinger’s paradox, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky Theory, etc. also implies. Furthermore, Zen kôans and other strange loops (Douglas Hofstadter) also reinforce this.
Fanatics hold the worst kind of dogma, for not only is their dogmatized system(s) of belief a closed system, they are usually held in the extreme. As all social and political common sense shows, any extreme tends to hold many blatantly false tenets (even if there is some truth in them) which require blind faith (see George H Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God, and Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, not to mention Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism..., Thomas Paine, etc. for why this is mental poison).
Blind faith is necessary if one chooses arbitrarily to believe something for which there is no, or trace amount of, empirical evidence for the existence or truth of something, or for which there is more than sufficient amount of evidence to suggest its falsity. Uncertainty is the wrench in the dogmatic fanatic’s machinery. If the specter of uncertainty arises then the several implications that uncertainty brings with it can and are fatal to irrationally held beliefs and can cause the fanatics worst nightmare – skepticism.
Fanatics develop and hold fast to dogma because it asserts absolute truth as a placeholder for things that we cannot (at least presently) know for certain via empirical evidence, or in place of scientifically and logically proven facts with which they choose not to agree for one reason or another – usually fear or discomfort with said facts’ implications regarding their life and their previously held beliefs thereof.
Uncertainty is viewed as dangerous by the fanatic because it sews the seed of doubt: ‘Maybe my strongly held view is incorrect, or only one of many ways to view this issue.’
Skepticism leads one to a degree of agnosticism (not necessarily in regards to supernatural phenomena) which places, at least temporarily, an individual in a position of uncertainty. What one must be able to do is:
1.) achieve the ability to be at peace with not knowing certain things for sure (see Alan Watts); and
2.) develop ways to discover the truth (see the scientific method) of things which we can know for sure.
This also ties in with memetics, semiotics, etc. insofar as we can study memetics and semiotics to look at the conceptual engineering, both blatant and unconscious, employed to coerce people into believing (i.e. using blind faith) something for which they have no reason (pun intended) for believing. Without properly developed memetic filters and logical faculties one is unable to apply Pancritical Rationalism to sensory data and conceptual data in a sound manner.
View everything as a system that may be understand to some degree as a rule-based (in some way or another) and, in some way, goal-oriented. There is a hierarchical systems-based format to all existence, and oftentimes, a heterarchical one as well. The ‘rules’ by which said systems operate are more explicit than others due to varying degrees of apparent orderliness and chaos; i.e. varying degrees of complexity. The more implicit it seems, the more this may be due to our current inabilities of observation of particular phenomena – usually technological, but possibly some degree of intuition (not sure about the latter though).
Look at why the systems approach is viable / legitimate. The phenomenon of systems being similar qualities that allow the study thereof to bear fruits.
It may be useful to look at the overlapping nature of these systems – the phase transitions between component parts. Also, to look for similarity between disparate (at least seemingly so) systems. Possibly self-similarity in hierarchical systems. General similarities heterarchically. It may also be useful to look at scaling (which goes along with general similarity and self-similarity).
Stress the importance of value judgments in rational decision-making. We place value on everything around us in our lives. It behooves us to consciously understand the difference between necessities and luxuries. Also, the contexts in which we subjectively place things in our practical application of these value judgments (in terms of differentiating between necessities and luxuries). For instance, there are the ‘bare’, or primary, necessities: air, water, food, etc.; and there are luxuries: fancy clothes, jewelry, accessories, hobby paraphernalia, etc.
But we also have a dichotomy in the difference between primary necessities and contextual necessities; i.e. (in the modern, Western world) transportation to and from your job, not to mention education (which may or may not directly influence the type of job you do or wish to do). Of course, this in itself is a, or can be, matter of value judgment – that is, what type of job you wish to do.
In other words, you may live on a farm, but have the aptitude and desire to be an engineer. Thusly, an education is required to become an engineer and in lieu of an educational institution coming to you (on your farm) you would (in the context of your decision to become an engineer) be necessitated to travel to an educational institution to receive said schooling.
If your desire is to be a musician, you would either need the skills and resources first to make an instrument or the trading power (monetary or otherwise) to acquire an instrument which implies means of achieving / acquiring some level of financial achievement and possibly transportation (either for you or for some delivery service of sorts which also implies means of communication thereof) which also has to be funded by said delivery service operators and their business partners in a whole array of different business pursuits invoking TANSTAAFL (Robert Heinlein’s ‘There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch’) and the Broken Window Fallacy.
My point here is that the complexity in which everyday life functions, nothing is free and all manner of commerce is intertwined and overlapping. Globalism only increases this state and globalism is itself increasing.
Restructuring of memetics by looking at pre-memes and including communication and information theory. Applying Peikoff / Rand’s view of knowledge / epistemology (i.e. context, etc.) so that we may take the systems approach. Look at how concepts both are created and how they evolve (emergence and development). And then look at how they are ‘spread’ (the current realm of memetics). Also, look at how they evolve due to feedback (systems feedback loops, etc.) – i.e. through discourse (look at Bohm’s ideas on true discourse).
Psychology also plays into this strongly insofar as how people react and digest new concepts, new memes. An individual’s personal psychology and overall philosophy will affect how they do this. In other words, their existing ideosphere will give a specific context to each new meme and degrees of open-mindedness vary from individual to individual and from moment to moment for each individual. The degree of open-mindedness can be improved upon and the consistency can be increased, but it is also important to increase ones memetic filter through logic, reasoning, empiricism, Pancritical Rationalism, etc. This is what necessitates the development of a method for gaining new knowledge and dealing with it – the so-called memetic filtration system which is the method / program of autodidacticism I wish to invoke through aforementioned practices.
Make use of all possible resources to educate oneself. When you run across something about which you do not know, follow up on it and do the research to gain knowledge thereof. This tends to have tangential effects (as illustrated by resources such as Wikipedia, but also any encyclopedic, reference-laden resources) which lead you in all sorts of directions you might not have previously gone in.
This method of research tends to have exponential consequences in ones search for knowledge. Whilst looking for knowledge one is behooved to apply memetic filtration at all turns to avoid misinformation and catch disinformation always looking to uncover previously gained mis- / disinformation as such (by looking at context and applying Pancritical Rationalism). Intellectual honesty is also key to taking this approach to its fullest potential and avoiding any hints of fanaticism and blind faith which are antithesis to logic, reasoning, empiricism, the scientific method and Pancritical Rationalism.
All of existence is matter and energy (and vice versa per Einstein) which acts according to rules (thermodynamics, electromagnetism, gravity) and organizes as information into systems (and out of systems – entropy; seeking equilibrium).
Challenges create the opportunity for both increased awareness due to lessons learned when scrutinizing intellectually honest analysis and self-analysis is applied as well as the possibility for an increase in resilience. Research in psychological resilience began with studying children of schizophrenic parents – the realization being made that about 1/3 of the children actually became more able to cope with catastrophic situations; their Chapel Perilous being visited and conquered successfully. These trials of childhood helped shape their abilities in their formative years and unlocked the capacity to cope and even shine in situations that might otherwise lead to other collapse on the part of the individual stuck in said situation. Their ego-resiliency and ego-control was actually improved by their atmospheric conundrums.
There appears to be two levels of attainment or attempting to find happiness. The first is the superficial, consensus reality goal of happiness from a viewpoint of a more immediate, seemingly more rational approach in the form of getting what you want (now); what you’re raised to want. This form of happiness tends to include a more base, materialistic sense of happiness, the run-of-the-mill ‘American dream’, the typical desire to have a good paying job – regardless of the satisfaction derived thereof – and marrying the individual you want to. It usually implies getting a college degree, driving a nice car, purchasing a house, raising, ‘good, successful’, children, etc. It includes attaining the usual portfolio of status symbols which allow people to fit in with the herd of middle class Joneses.
There is a need for calm to allow for mental clarity allowing in turn for focus which opens the door for productive thought and the productive actions.
Reading biographies can be useful insofar as noticing the parallels between the subject and ones own self as it is easier to see the faults in others often times. Understanding the psychology of the topic of a biography can aid in understanding oneself if one is willing to look.
Similarities and differences between information theory and memetics. Can memes be measured as bits? Likenesses with phonemes (compare with Charles Seife in Decoding the Universe and Erik Davis in Techgnosis). Compare Stevan Harnad and my concept of atomic memes. Maybe look at Chomsky and Pinker along with other linguistic theories. As well as other cognitive theories and approaches to understanding what degree ideas are physical phenomena.
Maybe the better idea is to leave the concept of memes as Richard Dawkins (in The Selfish Gene) and Howard Bloom (in Global Brain) explain them and divert back to simply tackling the already sizable task of understanding, explaining and integrating an epistemological theory of concepts. Within this there is Ayn Rand/Leonard Peikoff’s theory of concept formation and Dawkins/Susan Blackmore’s approach to the whole idea which by default includes (not just focuses on) memes.
All related theories of communication (not just verbal and written linguistic theories) are important to developing a cohesive and ‘proper’ theory of conceptualization (both generation and transmission).
The importance of putting your philosophy into action – otherwise what’s the point in developing it?
Individualism as a basis – think for yourself; act for yourself; be responsible for yourself (i.e. take responsibility for your actions
The importance of self-motivation, and discipline – institutionalized education is not necessarily (especially in today’s world) going to give you a well-rounded, useful philosophy.
It is necessary to increase your knowledge of as many things as possible to give you the most informed outlook as this increases your ability to make intelligent decisions.
Marketing will exist as long as there are products or ideas to market. Marketing does have a negative effect insofar as certain products, ideas are marketed which are not necessarily any better than competing products, ideas but, due to their better marketing schemata, may sell better and henceforth cause better products and ideas not to survive or at least do poorly in the market (cheating market Darwinianism). For this reason, we must realize that in an evolutionary environment, products and ideas are very closely linked in a symbiotic way as they compete to survive and replicate.
Whereas intelligence seems to be rather inborn, self-motivation, discipline, work ethic seem to be learned and what good is intelligence without the other attributes? Two sides of the nature/nurture dichotomy.
The 20th Century saw the beginning and collapse of socialism (/communism) as well as the emergence of the voluntary ceding of individualism en masse.
Reality TV as a method of voyeurism, vicarious living and exhibition.
You are not born with purpose – you develop purpose. This is why it is so important to develop as informed a philosophical policy for living and decision making as possible.
On the one hand we do what we have to do to survive and reproduce – producing (and producing better products and ideas than others especially) enables us to survive and reproduce better (at least in a free-market society) for we can make a better living (and hence survive better - because the more financial means the easier it is to afford better food, shelter, protection, etc.), as well as find a better mate and hence, reproduce better.
Whereas surviving and reproducing better are both preferable in order to enjoy life whilst living it one must acquire the ability to appreciate (an art in itself).
Once you develop the ability to think for yourself and educate yourself with all the necessary knowledge (and start to develop ‘wisdom’) you can tackle (or at least begin to) the otherwise seemingly meaninglessness of life through balancing both the survival / reproduction aspects of life with the enjoyment / progress aspects (a further art in itself).
It is important to keep your ‘system of belief’ open-ended (Pancritical Rationalization) always allowing for new information to be applied if it fits in logically (i.e. it passes the rigorous analysis of reason and is found to be ‘true’). This is also why one must continue ones education both formally through actively seeking new knowledge through all forms of media as well as learning from experiences. This is why we must develop finely-tuned memetic filters both for traditional memes and experiential memes as experiences tend to affect our thinking via our subjective emotional responses to said experiences more so than the objective ‘intellectual’ responses we tend to have toward memes acquired through reading or conversation, although heated conversation tends to incur emotional responses for instance our bias toward being right for our own sake – what I call the ‘I want to be right all the time’ ego fallacy, or the Passionate Believer Fallacy.
Once we dogmatize our ideas and opinions we tend to lose conceptual validity and oftentimes validity of our actions as well.
Systems theory is very important to study (as is cybernetics) for the reason that everything in ‘concrete’ existence is part of and made up of systems. And it only helps in our understanding overall to understand the interactions of said systems and their parts.
The study of mythology is an extension of the studies of memetics and psychology, both the ideas in and of themselves, but also how those ideas affect the minds of those who hold them (to be true?).
The desire to control stems from fear. The more fear you can conquer the easier it is to enjoy life. This said, it is not always useful merely to conquer a fear, it is oftentimes useful to avoid that which causes the fear (or the object of fear more precisely) i.e. fear of death or painful injury. Conquest of fear should not lead to a subsequently haphazard lifestyle; it should not lend license to carelessness / recklessness.
I find it far more useful to first develop a system for thinking than a system of thinking. Once you have rules laid out for the gathering of knowledge, then you can go through knowledge only assimilating that which can be logically shown to be ‘true’. Next you must combine the ideas to conciliate a full, consistent philosophy which in itself is a framework for action in day-to-day life.
The major problems of Western society I currently am led to believe now will only be solved if a free market is allowed to run its course and force people to end the policies which allow these problems to run rampant throughout society. Broad, sweeping government programs do not offer answers, they create self-serving bureaucracies. Federal coercion will not create a utopia. When government enables victimilogy and encourages (either directly or indirectly; on purpose or otherwise) taking advantage of the welfare state then these phenomena will do nothing but increase exponentially. When government attempts to educate a vast populous it will necessarily drop the standards that judge its performance in so doing. When governments make war on other governments / organizations without popular support, that populous will not willingly put themselves at the government’s behest insofar as fighting for said government.
D Coupland (p 204 Hey Nostradamus!):
‘…the five most unattractive traits in people are cheapness, clinginess, neediness, unwillingness to change and jealousy.’
A philosophy that seeks first to develop and then to implement a method of thought which enables one to discover the proper methods of action and decision-making in life – developing a philosophy of life. Striving for maximum understanding and awareness of existence, ourselves included.
Realizing the systems-based nature of existence – i.e. the Universe as metasystem (with the possibility of multiple universe – parallel or otherwise, as well as ‘ana-Euclidean’ dimensions) and the ‘objects’ that inhabit said Universe as systems within and making up the Universe. Taking this starting point and digressing down the hierarchy / heterarchy and working to understand these systems and consequent sub-systems (and the systems, sub-systems and super/supra-systems they themselves compose). Including the Objectivist axioms which allow us to logically look at these systems – Existence, Consciousness, Identity. Seeking to understand the nature of human knowledge insofar as we attribute meaning, and other epistemologically related topics – context, information theory, symbols, language / semantics, mathematics, etc. Moving on toward understanding the workings of humans both as individuals and groups (large and small). Understanding the Universe we know and see on a daily basis from physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, neurophysiology, etc.
From here we can continue on to aspects of ethics, ‘spirituality’, politics, Existentialism, (Anarcho-/Anarcho-Capitalist-) Libertarianism, and all other self- and social-transformative systems.
We can start to see the overlap in all of these disparate fields of knowledge and we hope to employ the concilience of all from the beginning, but how? That is the key to developing this as a viably transferable system-of-belief / philosophy / (school of thought?). Looking at this conundrum from a memetic point of view, we see that there are not necessarily any particularly remarkable / outstanding hooks with which to attract others. As a whole I believe that the system (incomplete though it is at present) is superior to most dogmatic approaches to complete systems of philosophy, but the problem seems to lie just there – ‘as a whole’.
The system itself has no spiffy one-liners, not to mention that it is an open-system (employing a diligent regimen of Pancritical Rationalism and the unending search for further applicable knowledge). The system does not claim to glean any new, previously ‘occult’ knowledge from any breakthrough personal revelations or discoveries. It is the grouping together of a large store of human knowledge and theories. This is probably more on par with the Rosicrucians’ program of disseminating knowledge in tiers and conciliating them as one progresses. This in itself is likely to discourage a great many if any were ever to be interested in the first place.
I believe the system needs to be worked out to where the different modes of knowledge can be elucidated in digestible chunks, but also in a progression that makes sense (both in itself and together with parallel ‘lessons’). This will require (not ironically) employing the very information we are looking to include in the system in order to figure out how to teach it to others. So how do we start?
I currently believe that we need to start with the axiomatic primaries. Peikoff’s organizational methods used in his Introduction to Objectivism is so far the best model I have yet found myself. Starting with the aforementioned axioms and then branching off into the different fields cross-referencing heterarchically.
The preference here might be to find specialists in each field for the intellectual heavy-lifting required by some of the more esoteric of the included fields of knowledge – quantum mechanics, neuropsychology, etc. But then would it not make just as much sense to develop a reading list with associated texts to help integrate the knowledge gained from each book / paper with the whole?
Of course with this comes the setback that not all specified fields have well-written, amateur-friendly, literature available with which to start, not to mention further reading which can help the reader progress from beginner to intermediate and on and on. The ideal would be to have to know what is written on each subject with an understanding and integration of and with the whole already in mind at the time of writing. But is this in the least bit (at present the present at least) realistic? Paradigmatic Inquiry so far in lieu of anything better seems to be the only plausible outlet for something on this scale and currently that too seems undoable to a large extent.
How to encourage? How to motivate? Where is the incentive? First of all, must contributors be of like mind? Whereas I do not feel they must, I cannot at this time prove otherwise so this issue will remain for now. Many present contacts do not seem terribly motivated to contribute. The work needs to be done, but at present seems to require multiple individuals working in tandem. That is the ideal I strive for. There have been countless individuals, many of them knowledgeable of one another’s work but not on an ideally sufficient scale, to wit, my proposition.
The realization can be made that we are inherently mechanistic animals which can become more and more aware. Gurdjieff attributes to his father the belief that one is not born with a soul but can develop one.
17 June 2008
Maslow / Fromm
Abraham Maslow posited that the fear of knowledge is the fear of doing via knowledge’s inherent requisite for action due to conscience. Fromm, in The Sane Society talks about the widespread reluctance to fully awake oneself and I believe these are one and the same conceptually speaking for awakening occurs by way of gaining knowledge as well as allowing for gaining further knowledge of things which one would not otherwise have accrued. This is because the awakening, the achievement of awareness, takes you out of your previous narrow tunnel-reality; it takes you out of your amassed consensus reality and thus ‘expands your horizons’ (your potential horizons at the least).
Awakening also implies a new freedom; as an individual, to be an individual. This freedom and the new knowledge-bound conscience (qua Maslow’s insights) is also closely linked to Fromm insofar as his discussion of conscience as related to the reader in Man For Himself. He makes the distinction between authoritarian conscience and humanistic conscience where authoritarian conscience is that which exists in an individual (and societies for that matter) in the capacity of dictating their motivations via the authority of a ‘higher’, ‘more virtuous’ elite with fiat wisdom. Conversely, humanistic conscience hails from the individual’s true, basically good (as a primary alternative) human nature – that which is virtuous and in the best interest of man, both as an individual and as a species. The more awakened one has become, the more awareness one has achieved, the more the humanistic conscience is employed in both everyday life and in the realm of the abstract, the philosophizing that goes into concept integration (memetic integration).
One’s memetic filters are, more and more, guided by / affected by this humanistic conscience and, being the feedback loop it is, the memetic filtration system is furthermore affected by the types of memes it decides to ‘allow’ in for integration. This scenario of Maslow-Fromm knowledge-awareness-conscience-driven action is a requisite for personal transformation (which is, in itself, requisite for societal transformation).
The plethora of available psychotechnologies means that one is able to study multiple disciplines and integrate in a syncretistic manner which ones work for them and they, working in tandem, and which aspects work best for any given individual.
The times we live in now where we are globally connected via communication technology allow for the greatest spread of information by way of our astounding level of interconnectedness. Increasing ones ability to gather information and integrate it optimally is now more precious than ever given our telecommunicative capabilities. This should also be coupled with an ever increasing degree of interpersonal skills (i.e. emotional and social intelligence – ‘social skills’) as well as the necessity of honing ones memetic filters as sharply as possible.
On the topic of memetic filters, it is important to understand the roles they play both on the original reception of a meme, but also the recurrent aspect memetic filters have regarding the concepts one already holds; i.e. going back over already extant concepts and re-evaluating their significance and validity in light of memes accumulated in the intervening period.
The grand import of memetic filters, in our time as in all previous others, is the avoidance of ideological pitfalls such as blind faith, dogmatism, fanaticism and other related phenomena. The application of logic, reason and Pancritical Rationalism when properly and skillfully utilized, staves off the seemingly all-pervasive tendency of humans to abuse, misuse and deform any given concept that comes into play in the social arena. The ideosphere is rife with originally well-intentioned viewpoints which are led astray by those viewing them for personal greed (of money, power, control, etc.).
Thought and action are symbiotic. Action relies on thought (even instinctual action may be modified via reprogramming which requires initial thought). Hence, it behooves us to analyze our thoughts and our thought processes in order to achieve consistency in our actions.
Not just consistency, but logical, meaningful and productive action. Understanding the, oftentimes, irrational reasoning we employ in our actions takes us one step closer to fuller awareness and allows us to reformulate our all-too-often automatic reactions to external (and internal) stimuli. We can learn to be responsive and proactive as opposed to strictly reactive.
Clarity of mind is a necessary prerequisite for the focus we need to achieve fuller awareness. Focus is a must when we are analyzing our thoughts and our subsequent actions. There are multitudes of psychotechnologies available which can assist in gaining mental clarity. Proper sleep, exercise and dietary regimens are also more than merely helpful in acquiring this status of clarity. Psychological health is not necessarily a simple thing to achieve, but it both aids in mental clarity and is required to have it. One must apply their focus on many issues in the mind to work towards psychological health and a base of clarity needs to be present for such work to be undertaken, not to mention successfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)