(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment