NOTES FROM 2001
JOURNEY IN THE TRINITY
IDEAS,
INSPIRATION AND THE SOURCE, NATURE, ORDER
ANIL MITRA PHD, ©
2001, REFORMATTED June 2003
ADDITIONAL NOTES IN SEPARATE DOCUMENTS:
Map of Mind | Map of my World | Mathematics and its Foundations | Words, Language, Metaphysics | Surface and Depth | Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics and its Resolution | The Origins of Language | The Truth Can be Known
Document status: June 27, 2003
This document is the beginning of much in the way of new development relative to where I was at the time
Maintain as a source; no action necessary, especially for Journey in Being
The following is a possible start of a development
There is much else that is interesting, especially
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy but that has been absorbed to History of Western Philosophy
The Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics | The Fundamental
Problem of Metaphysics and its Resolution
are now in a separate
document
I am leaving the plans and fundamental conclusions as they are; they can be left behind since the essence of this document except the fundamental problems above has been absorbed or superseded
Brief Contents
BELIEF, KNOWLEDGE, CODING | CATEGORICAL ONTOLOGY | WHAT IS ANTHROPOLOGY? | WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY | LANGUAGE | ON THE INTEREST IN PHILOSOPHY | WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF A PHILOSOPHY OF MIND? | THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS | THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS AND ITS RESOLUTION | PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND LIFE. WITTGENSTEIN AND HUME | EVOLUTION OF BEING | ON INFERENCE | ON INFERENCE II | MATHEMATICS AND ITS FOUNDATIONS | ON YOGA: A TALK DELIVERED TO THE SKY AND THE WIND AT ENNI
CAMP | MAP OF MIND | THE ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE | A MAP OF MY WORLD | DESIGN: HORIZONS ENTERPRISES | DESIGN: A JOURNEY IN NATURE | SURFACE AND DEPTH | THE TRUTH CAN BE KNOWN
Legend
Fundamental conclusions
Plans
These notes,
written in the Trinity Alps, are currently in process. I am translating them
from rough hand notes, refining them as I do so. Once complete, the notes may
be critically incorporated into existing essays. As examples, The Fundamental Problem Of
Metaphysics and The
Fundamental Problem Of Metaphysics And Its Resolution will be
incorporated into On
Mind and Metaphysics; and On
Inference, On
Inference II, and Mathematics
And Its Foundations
and The Origins Of Language, will be incorporated with Kinds
of Knowledge
Complete this process of critical incorporation.
2.1 Is
there a categorical ontology?
2.2 What
is nothing, or no-thing?
6 ON THE INTEREST IN PHILOSOPHY
6.1 The
constitutional requirements for an interest in philosophy
7 WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF A
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND?
8 THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF
METAPHYSICS
9 THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF
METAPHYSICS AND ITS RESOLUTION
10 PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND LIFE.
WITTGENSTEIN AND HUME
10.1 The
concept of the empirical
10.3 What
makes something [a claim, a study… ] empirical?
10.4 The
claim that philosophy is not empirical
10.5 Hume
and science – or, Hume’s brilliant error
11.1 Evolution
and the Boundaries of Being
12.1 The
Concept of Logic and Inference: preliminary
12.2 The
Concept of Logic and Inference
12.3 Logic
as the Process of Knowledge Acquisition and “Verification”
12.5 The
Analysis of Knowledge
12.6.1 “Definition” vs. criteria
12.6.2 Concepts or theories of truth:
12.6.3 Relationship among and status of
the theories
12.6.4 An example: the pragmatist
theory
12.7 The
Analysis of Thinking… Cognition…
12.8.2 On
abstraction and generality
12.8.3 An
example: independent universes
14 MATHEMATICS AND ITS FOUNDATIONS
15 ON YOGA: A TALK DELIVERED TO THE
SKY AND THE WIND AT ENNI CAMP
18 A MAP OF MY WORLD / A MAP OF THE
WORLD
19 DESIGN: HORIZONS ENTERPRISES
20 DESIGN: A JOURNEY IN NATURE
Sunday 8.19.01
This discussion is continued in Map of Mind
In an indeterminate universe, by adaptation – in the nature of being in such a universe, one can believe and doubt at the same time. But this is inherent in the primary meaning of belief: when I say “I believe that” – this is consistent with doubt. Or, if there are a number of – exclusive – possibilities one can believe all with some weighting at the same time. But this is in the nature of being – that in truth the “state” of a being is always a superposition:
a | this > + b | not this >
or
a | this > + b | that >
Then, “I believe this” is better than “I know this” even in the usual case where / when a >> b and I say “I know this.”
Belief is omnivalent and real
Belief state = Σ α | x >
Belief is real; knowledge is a concept
Belief is what the individual has, knowledge is what the group accepts / certifies and to which the individual may adhere
Certified as to: degree of certainty, intrinsic utility, truth, morality and aesthetics and combinations and degrees thereof
Certainty should not be central, yet it is almost a kind of an aesthetic. To what kind of mind, or in what socio-political climate would certainty be an aesthetic? This is related to “cleanliness is next to godliness”
Certified how: justification, convention, in-action – both common knowledge and science…
Knowledge is flat; belief is rich. Belief takes into account knowledge, being and experience. Belief is of the universe and therefore “Belief is real and – subconsciously – omnivalent. Belief is the key to truth and full growth into potential
Belief and knowledge are held, acquired by individuals. More fundamental is coding. Forget about what you know about coding, the other symbols attached to “coding”. Here, coding is any structure in the individual that attunes the individual to the universe – that includes self and environment. The source of the coding could be random but usually bears the imprint of the universe. The structure and composition of the skeleton are coding. In between this basic organic level and the level of articulated belief is an entire range of coded modalities
Monday 8.20.01
There is action and meta-action. Meta-action includes talk. Axiological meta-talk: it is good / bad, useful / useless, inspiring / boring to talk about… [ categorical ontology ]
There is analytical meta-talk: to deduce a result within the system by looking at its structure. Analytical meta-talk is the same as analytical talk? No, the former must include a degree of intuition or some other element
The categories are categories of the universe… or of our understanding. How will we ultimately distinguish? This is answered below, in THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS Sunday 9.16.01 and THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS AND ITS RESOLUTION Sunday 10.7.01
To not go through a process is to abort it and remain in a state of arrest. If you do not make something basic, explicit you will accept and remain in an arrest: the default position
Matter vs. mind? Seriously, what is matter? Something from no-thing:
0 = 1 + [-1]
Some things about this:
It is the empty ontology: nothing, no-thing, Φ
Therefore, mind and matter are equally basic
It requires an abandonment of universal causation and an abandonment of determinism. Although physics is consistent with something from nothing, there are grades of nothing-ness. As far as something from the absolute nothing there is no way out but to completely abandon, as a universal principle, causality and any thought of determinism [ there may arise pockets of causation and quasi-determinism ]
No structure
No form
Non-existence
Neither existence nor non-existence
Just like infinity, are there / there are levels of Φ
Wednesday 8.22.01
A shaman claims to fly in the spirit world
Can the anthropologist [ claim to ] understand the shaman’s claim
…know whether the shaman actually believe his own claim
…whether the shaman believes he believes his own claim
…judge the reality content of the shaman’s claims and beliefs
…understand the “function” of the shaman’s claims, beliefs and practices – interpret them from “the” western worldview
…learn from the culture? How?
…can there be mutual adaptation
The
Saturday 9.1.01
Saturday 9.1.01
Language, among its functions, bears ands permits creation of meaning. As a bearer of intended meaning, language has limitations; but a non-linguistic animal cannot communicate [ or feel? ] the range of meanings that is possible for a linguistic one
Language – in one role – describes states of affairs, patterns and so expresses and communicates knowledge: knowledge by description. Knowledge by acquaintance is through the senses and may be described when there is a set of elements and meaningful combinations – otherwise this form of knowledge is communicated by shared practice and pointing [ naming ], depicting, acting out. Knowledge by acquaintance is richer, more direct, a paradigm of our experience of reality [ empiricism ]. By contrast, knowledge by description, by language, is limited: one-dimensional, flat, second hand, a poor bearer of the “real”. I suppose art would be part way between but do not see why art is not “by description”. Communication is multi-modal, the written word, however, for various reasons unconnected with the actual power of the word, dominates the scene and so gives an impression of the supremacy of the word beyond its actual capability
Yet, knowledge by acquaintance requires special organs, cannot [? ] transcend its domain of application. Knowledge by description requires the facility of language but needs no special organ for each domain of application – and therefore permits not only the acquisition of new knowledge but, also, the formulation and expression of new domains of knowledge. The flatness of knowledge by description has as its reward the ability to move into new realms. That could be a limitation or a freedom. It is a limitation if it is expected that description will be a perfect substitute for acquaintance. The situation is not that flat for feeling follows description in developing [ at least ] two kinds of intuition: physical and analytic
Physical intuition is intuition of the world, analytic intuition is intuition of symbols – and language and of the kinds of structures and patterns of symbol systems. We could have intuition about all kinds of knowing. In that symbols are in the world, the distinction between analytic and physical intuition breaks down but in that they call upon different mental abilities, the distinction is valid and useful. Physical intuition, pictorial imagination and analytic intuition are all “pictorial”, involve, more, the “right” brain hemisphere
It is natural that language users will be confident in its use. But that confidence in new domains has been called “bewitchment.” In moving into new domains, however, although bewitchment is a motive, trial and error [ criticism ] is the way. It is through bewitchment that [ slow ] forward motion is possible. The pessimists say no; but think of a time in hominid evolution when language was about to emerge but did not yet exist. Critical philosophy in turning its own viewpoint into a paradigm takes a moment, a slice of history and sees a universe
God, of course, as being itself would require neither words, nor patterns, nor concepts, nor senses, nor immersion
Origin / origins
I would like to write an hypothetical analysis of the evolutionary origins of language which does justice to its subjectivity, objectivity [ realism and not mere conventionalism ] and to its power to immediately communicate [ despite flatness of dimension ] and the dependence of this on context and non-linguistic modes of communication [ is the distinction between language and non-verbal communication artificial? ]
There is a beginning of this in Kinds of Knowledge.
Combine with The Origins of Language and. The beginning of this in Kinds of Knowledge.
Sunday 9.29.01
When I talk to others naturally, I find, almost invariably, an interest in philosophy. What is natural? That depends upon the audience. Problems, issues, ideas arise naturally; there is interest. It is different if I were to introduce a philosophical problem and thoughts out of context. There is a context to the “theoretical” issues; that requires building up
The reaction depends on when “philosophy” is brought up… I do not begin talking about some issue unless there is an occasion: a life context, an issue, some one mentions a course they took, a puzzle
And how… I could say that the argument is a form of transcendental analytic from the facts of existence and sentience to the idea of matter. Or, one could say:
Science teaches that the world, including minds, is made up of material particles. If that is true, the fact that we think, see, have minds must tell us something about matter. Here’s one way to look at the situation…
Just in the way that “algebra” is more interesting if you start with a real life situation, solve a problem and then say “By the way, that was algebra.” Part of the problem: life is continuous with the disciplines; it is very easy to lose sight of that
There are, certainly, reactions against philosophy. Mostly, the reactions are reactionary: fear, control, anger. Then there is politics: philosophy is the province of the elite, it is anti-democratic. And, surely there is confusion of motives – how often do we find that people have moral reactions as defenses? But, mostly, apart from “pathology”, I find that the interest / lack of interest in philosophy depends on when and how the topic is introduced – including whether it is presented as an isolated academic exercise or as continuous with life. It is different in writing; and it is different when talking to someone who has a mutual knowledge and interest in the discipline
I do not open a discussion of philosophical issues with, say, a discussion of “solipsism” – unless I am talking to someone who is interested in the tradition of philosophy
First, this depends on what is philosophy – a method, accumulated ideas and arguments, an activity…
Second, I am not a philosopher if you mean someone who is interested in philosophy for its own sake. [ Some rambling stuff. There is some of that because some very creative [ and some rather dull ] minds have contributed. But, primarily, philosophy is the main ingredient of gñana yoga. Here, philosophy is understood in a general sense of an umbrella discipline; and it includes art – I could say humanities but philosophy in its general sense is better. That will confuse those who cannot for a second give up the picture they have in their minds; that contradicts what may be said about the arbitrariness of definitions. What is yoga? It is the “union” with all being; yoga is “yoke”. I mean union somewhat metaphorically; it includes all ways to approach it including “design, evolution, construction.” And gñana is, of course, knowledge [ sometimes wisdom but knowledge will do. ] So, study of philosophy is a tool. What can I be? How can I know that? Here, a little comment on yoga. The kinds raja – the way of intuition and insight, exploration of space – space? Yes, but I mean the spaces that the mind can cover; then: bhakti – worship, devotion; karma – work, action; and gñana. It is claimed that raja is the highest; I often think that gñana and bhakti are the lowest; but that is all on slanted ideas of what these are; one can “do” karma with the mindfulness of raja, the attitude of bhakti without bloated ritual, and infused with gñana; and each reinforces the other. All words become slanted weighted with oppression; to be free release the ultra-secular meanings the meaningless meanings; let meaning flow amid the reality of space and self. The discipline of yoga is an idea; absorb; go beyond… naturalize, avoid word and slant ]
So, what about solipsism. How interesting is that? Firstly, about a lot of “isms.” The “isms” represent philosophical positions. But more than that. No one goes around saying “I am a solipsist.” But many people have a covert solipsism: the “privacy and incommunicability of my phenomenal bubble.” And as a result a covert sense of separation. These things are real. Alienation is at the heart of human beings as is being-in. This is distinct from any fashion. So, Wittgenstein says something about that when he talks of solipsism. He shows, logically and not scientifically, how solipsism contradicts its own underpinnings. His argument shows the depth of the connection. And what of autism? That is a form of psychological solipsism. There is a theoretical approach through Wittgenstein’s argument. In philosophy the interest of solipsism is not a mere academic exercise; fundamentally, resolution of the paradox sheds light on “what is knowing”, “how am I tied in to the world”, “knowing is of the world even when it is someone’s creation”… it is a gñana yoga…
What kind of activity is philosophy?
The following are not meant to be definitive: they are “just some” thoughts
Consider classing persons as ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph. The ectomorph does not have sufficient patience; the endomorph does not have sufficient passion. Therefore, about 1 / 3 of the population is constitutionally suited to do philosophy. Of course 1 / 3 is a rough estimate. And this refers, only, to temperament and not to ability or circumstance