DudeMiester
Regular
Recently, I have been trying to construct a logical basis for the relationship between value and the society, deriving from it the ideal morality and the need for a market based economy. It's very nice and elegant, for example, clearly demonstrating the truth of Jesus' teachings from a logical point of view. Moreover, I'm fairly certain I'm not the first person to come to this realization, but I'm doing this for my own sake as much as any other. In any case, I'm stymied by the need to provide a solid basis from which these further conclusions are derived. Normally this is done by stating a set of initial assumptions, axioms that is, but surely there is something better then assumption?
Pondering this, I thought of Descartes with his statements, "I doubt, I am" and "I think, I am". Here, he establishes the existence of thought through the self-demonstrating thought of doubt, then defines its existence as the thinker and the self. One can then further define thought that describes non-self as perception, the perceived as one's reality, occurrences in reality as actions, actions that involve the non-self as interactions, create more general terms like others, information, function and execution, etc... These are not assumptions. Rather, they are names given to direct and unquestionable observations. In this way, one can create a solid foundation for the study of the one's existence.
However, something seems fundamentally incomplete with this basis. After all, Descartes encountered the notion of the doubted doubt through the method of doubting all things, but such a method requires the doubt of thought itself. It requires all logic, causality and thought to be assumed false until proven otherwise. Descartes cannot say that if he doubts, he exists, for the idea that he doubts, or thinks anything for that matter, may itself be a delusion. It is clear, then, that in the depths of doubt, no conclusions can be made, as anything may be delusion.
Alright, then consider the opposite of doubt. That is, the method of certainty, where all things are assumed true until proven false. Here one finds a more immediate problem. If things can be proven false, then one cannot be certain of them. Such a method requires delusion to be conceived. That is, one must simultaneously hold in one's mind the two contradictory thoughts of total certainty and total uncertainty. Here, again, one finds madness and no conclusions.
Finally, one could simply let some things be certainties and other uncertainties. However, there can be no certain way to separate the two. Rather, it must be random and arbitrary. Thus, one's thoughts are random, and again there is insanity.
It is clear that any certainty cannot come from within oneself, and in isolation, the self cannot meaningfully exist. Thus, truth must come from an external reality in which one is contained. However, how can one be certain of this reality, if one cannot be certain of oneself?
Then it hit me. The fundamental question is not one's existence. After all, this questioning did not occur in and of itself. Rather, it was created by the reading of Descartes statements. It was this communication that realized this process. After all, by being written, these ideas exist as communication. Therefore, the fundamental thing is not the actor, but the interaction.
What, then, of doubt, thought, delusion and the thinker? First of all, the thinker is only a name for the set of interactions called thought. Thoughts are a complex and nuanced set of interactions, one I don't fully understand, of which doubt is a particular type. Thus, interaction requires neither thought nor thinker, so delusion, being a state of thought, does not apply.
In this way, the delusional thinker can exist, for their knowledge of their existence is not required for them to exist. It is interesting, because the methods of doubt, certainty and their blends all require the deconstruction of self. This system is that deconstruction. Thus, the conundrum of self-centred philosophy both demands and is resolved by the fundamental removal of the self.
Although, from this, it can be seen that interaction requires the existence of actors. Similarly, relative to an agent involved in an interaction, that agent is defined as self, and other involved agents are defined as perceptions and non-self. Moreover, actors are the result of interactions themselves. This recursion ensures the continuation of interaction, and this body of intermeshed interactions can be defined as reality. Thus, reality is sustained by the interactions it consists of, and if two things interact, they prove they are in the same shared reality.
In this sense, actors themselves consist of a kernel of self-sustaining interactions, like how the photon is the interaction of two fields. Furthermore, we can define the structure of this network as information. Thus, things are composed of information.
Still, this doesn't explain what interaction is precisely. I suppose that the best word for it is change, for if interaction didn't require change, then it's existence would be meaningless. That is, two things could interact or not interact, and there would be no difference. Thus, it's clear that reality is and is sustained by change, a person is an agent and product of change, and all meaning is found in change.
Then, if some change is occurring, a thing that consistently creates change of a certain nature can be defined as causing that change. This causality can, additionally, be defined as a communication from the agent of change to the changed. In addition, the causal chain and sequence of interactions can be defined as time. Also, such communication can go any combination of ways, including all ways.
However, communication requires a standard of communication to be enabled. That is, a shared truth is needed, and indeed there is one. The common truth is the common reality, and it is this truth that all communications are built upon. Therefore, what some call assumptions or axioms, are really just the prerequisites of communication. There is no assumption being made, simply a common ground being established.
Looking at this communication network, we see various agents representing differing bodies of information, but all sharing the common truth of their shared reality. Through this basis, they interact, change and communicate information. This interaction of perception and alteration can further be defined as logic. That is, logic is the interaction by which agents change, and thus, logic is interaction. In any case, the logic of these interactions will result in bodies absorbing the information of others. Eventually, all the initial differences in information will become known to all agents. The rate this occurs corresponds to rate agents interact, and it is a measure of the liquidity or flux of information. In this way, the network starts with the smallest seed of universal truth and grows the complete tree.
At this point, a unifying analogy is appropriate, and the idea of a function works well for this purpose. A function takes parameters, executes and is transformed into some results. This execution is the interaction, the parameters and results are the actors, the function represents logic, and the nature of all these things is information. Thus, the parameters, through the function, change into the result. However, the parameters themselves are the result of functions, and thus, are other functions themselves. Likewise, the results of a function become the parameters to another function. This passing is communication, causality and time. Thus, parameters and results don't really exist. They are just aliases for functions, making functions the reality.
All in all, philosophy, being fundamentally about interaction and change, can be said to fundamentally be a question of communication. In particular, as a human construct, philosophy can be defined as the study of human interaction and communication. Of course, there are already things for this, from sociology to mathematics, physics and chemistry. Thus, philosophy self-deconstructs, only existing as a temporary measure, perhaps, to purify thought.
It's all very Zen, imho, and on this note, if I had to describe this thought as a koan, it would be:
Pondering this, I thought of Descartes with his statements, "I doubt, I am" and "I think, I am". Here, he establishes the existence of thought through the self-demonstrating thought of doubt, then defines its existence as the thinker and the self. One can then further define thought that describes non-self as perception, the perceived as one's reality, occurrences in reality as actions, actions that involve the non-self as interactions, create more general terms like others, information, function and execution, etc... These are not assumptions. Rather, they are names given to direct and unquestionable observations. In this way, one can create a solid foundation for the study of the one's existence.
However, something seems fundamentally incomplete with this basis. After all, Descartes encountered the notion of the doubted doubt through the method of doubting all things, but such a method requires the doubt of thought itself. It requires all logic, causality and thought to be assumed false until proven otherwise. Descartes cannot say that if he doubts, he exists, for the idea that he doubts, or thinks anything for that matter, may itself be a delusion. It is clear, then, that in the depths of doubt, no conclusions can be made, as anything may be delusion.
Alright, then consider the opposite of doubt. That is, the method of certainty, where all things are assumed true until proven false. Here one finds a more immediate problem. If things can be proven false, then one cannot be certain of them. Such a method requires delusion to be conceived. That is, one must simultaneously hold in one's mind the two contradictory thoughts of total certainty and total uncertainty. Here, again, one finds madness and no conclusions.
Finally, one could simply let some things be certainties and other uncertainties. However, there can be no certain way to separate the two. Rather, it must be random and arbitrary. Thus, one's thoughts are random, and again there is insanity.
It is clear that any certainty cannot come from within oneself, and in isolation, the self cannot meaningfully exist. Thus, truth must come from an external reality in which one is contained. However, how can one be certain of this reality, if one cannot be certain of oneself?
Then it hit me. The fundamental question is not one's existence. After all, this questioning did not occur in and of itself. Rather, it was created by the reading of Descartes statements. It was this communication that realized this process. After all, by being written, these ideas exist as communication. Therefore, the fundamental thing is not the actor, but the interaction.
What, then, of doubt, thought, delusion and the thinker? First of all, the thinker is only a name for the set of interactions called thought. Thoughts are a complex and nuanced set of interactions, one I don't fully understand, of which doubt is a particular type. Thus, interaction requires neither thought nor thinker, so delusion, being a state of thought, does not apply.
In this way, the delusional thinker can exist, for their knowledge of their existence is not required for them to exist. It is interesting, because the methods of doubt, certainty and their blends all require the deconstruction of self. This system is that deconstruction. Thus, the conundrum of self-centred philosophy both demands and is resolved by the fundamental removal of the self.
Although, from this, it can be seen that interaction requires the existence of actors. Similarly, relative to an agent involved in an interaction, that agent is defined as self, and other involved agents are defined as perceptions and non-self. Moreover, actors are the result of interactions themselves. This recursion ensures the continuation of interaction, and this body of intermeshed interactions can be defined as reality. Thus, reality is sustained by the interactions it consists of, and if two things interact, they prove they are in the same shared reality.
In this sense, actors themselves consist of a kernel of self-sustaining interactions, like how the photon is the interaction of two fields. Furthermore, we can define the structure of this network as information. Thus, things are composed of information.
Still, this doesn't explain what interaction is precisely. I suppose that the best word for it is change, for if interaction didn't require change, then it's existence would be meaningless. That is, two things could interact or not interact, and there would be no difference. Thus, it's clear that reality is and is sustained by change, a person is an agent and product of change, and all meaning is found in change.
Then, if some change is occurring, a thing that consistently creates change of a certain nature can be defined as causing that change. This causality can, additionally, be defined as a communication from the agent of change to the changed. In addition, the causal chain and sequence of interactions can be defined as time. Also, such communication can go any combination of ways, including all ways.
However, communication requires a standard of communication to be enabled. That is, a shared truth is needed, and indeed there is one. The common truth is the common reality, and it is this truth that all communications are built upon. Therefore, what some call assumptions or axioms, are really just the prerequisites of communication. There is no assumption being made, simply a common ground being established.
Looking at this communication network, we see various agents representing differing bodies of information, but all sharing the common truth of their shared reality. Through this basis, they interact, change and communicate information. This interaction of perception and alteration can further be defined as logic. That is, logic is the interaction by which agents change, and thus, logic is interaction. In any case, the logic of these interactions will result in bodies absorbing the information of others. Eventually, all the initial differences in information will become known to all agents. The rate this occurs corresponds to rate agents interact, and it is a measure of the liquidity or flux of information. In this way, the network starts with the smallest seed of universal truth and grows the complete tree.
At this point, a unifying analogy is appropriate, and the idea of a function works well for this purpose. A function takes parameters, executes and is transformed into some results. This execution is the interaction, the parameters and results are the actors, the function represents logic, and the nature of all these things is information. Thus, the parameters, through the function, change into the result. However, the parameters themselves are the result of functions, and thus, are other functions themselves. Likewise, the results of a function become the parameters to another function. This passing is communication, causality and time. Thus, parameters and results don't really exist. They are just aliases for functions, making functions the reality.
All in all, philosophy, being fundamentally about interaction and change, can be said to fundamentally be a question of communication. In particular, as a human construct, philosophy can be defined as the study of human interaction and communication. Of course, there are already things for this, from sociology to mathematics, physics and chemistry. Thus, philosophy self-deconstructs, only existing as a temporary measure, perhaps, to purify thought.
It's all very Zen, imho, and on this note, if I had to describe this thought as a koan, it would be:
Does one exist?
The answer cannot be found by its questioning,
But it is 42.
In any case, it is from this that I can define desire, and thus, value. That is, the entering into interaction is defined as desire, and the exit is fulfilment. Thus, fulfilling, that is, interaction, is defined as value. Then, from here, I can create my value system and many other things.The answer cannot be found by its questioning,
But it is 42.
Last edited by a moderator:
