JOURNEY IN
bEING
NEW IDEAS, FORMS AND DEVELOPMENTS: MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO
THE INTERNET AND PRINT VERSIONS
SINCE THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF JOURNEY IN BEING | Overview: PROLOGUE | HOME | CONTACT
NEW CONCEPTS, IDEAS, MODIFICATIONS
AND CORRECTIONS TO THE INTERNET
AND PRINT VERSIONS
ANIL MITRA PHD, February 3, 2004
THE NEW CONTENT MAY BE DIRECTLY INCORPORATED TO JOURNEY IN BEING OR ADDED TO DESIGN FOR A JOURNEY IN BEING
Introduction
In July 2003, with the substantial completion of the essay Journey in Being, the foundation for the Journey in Being [project and website] in thought, knowledge, ideas and the tradition of thought and knowledge was also substantially complete. The completion was marked by maturation of the foundations, synthesis of almost all of my thought and revision in terms of the foundations, and by the editing – minor to major conceptual change to elimination – and professionalization of every significant page of the site. As a result, I embark upon the remaining phases – outlined in Journey in Being – of which the first is Experiments in the Transformation of Being
Of course, nothing is ever complete. Corrections, elaborations and other modification to the documents of the site are recorded below. For plans for future development, see Design for a Journey in Being
1 Prologue to a Journey in Being
3 Mathematics and its Foundations
5 Design for a Journey in Being
6 History of Western Philosophy
Code
§ = section | p = page | c = column | ¶ = paragraph | s = sentence | w = word | - = counting from the end | Links in grey or sky blue may be unavailable on the Internet
Logic and Flow of the Prologue
Use of ‘Being’ in Modern English
On the Use of Probabilities in Relation to the Void
On the ‘Local / Universal’ Distinction
Changes and additions to the Prologue may also need to be made in the Introduction
§What is Being? ¶2 s-1 – 9.8.03: change “consider” to “include”
§Journey into Being Itself ¶3 s-3 | 9.8.03: change “discovery” to “in discovery”
§My Inspiration s2 | 9.11.03: change “inspirations” to inspiration”… or, instead, change “so much inspiration” to “so many inspirations”
General comments | 9.14.03: the meaning of nothingness; the comments are needed to assert the actual meaning used and to avoid confusion with other use
It is not the nothingness of Sartre which is an existential emptiness
Nor is it physical nothingness… it is especially not the vacuum of quantum physics which results in the absence of things without the absence of laws or the behavior of things
It is an absolute nothingness…
General comments – 9.14.03: the logic and flow of the prologue is extremely important; for it has the following functions
Introduction, outline, definition and mini-Journey in Being; setting the stage
Advertisement
First impression
Less technical introduction for general readers
Defining the Journey in Being
General comments | 9.14.03: use of “being” in modern English
One modern use of “being” is that of conscious entity. This is not the use here; rather, the use here is the philosophical sense of to be or exist that has been extensively discussed in the main essay, Journey in Being. Further, the distinction implied by being as a conscious entity is parochial in nature: although this is not, of course, self-evident it the point has been elaborated in the essay
General comments | 9.22.03: On the use of probabilities in relation to the void
As examples, I talk of the probability of the void manifesting as some state, or I talk of the probability of the void that we consider to be associated with a particle annihilating that particle...
Some times, the use of the concept of probability is valid. The void will manifest as every possible state; the probability is 1. However, what is the probability that the void will annihilate a particle or the current phase-epoch of the universe? In order to annihilate a particle that will have to be done during the lifetime of the particle so it makes sense to ask what is the probability of such annihilation in a given amount of time and I have talked of such probabilities being small…
However, I do not have a basis to make that assertion. Therefore, in order to talk of probabilities something like one of the following is needed:
We agree to use the word probability loosely. This is the most undesirable of the suggestions and is a last resort; it should not be necessary for we could replace “probability” with “ignorance;” and we would then need to distinguish what cases involve ignorance and what cases involve probabilities 0 or1
We would find some underlying logic. This is hinted at in the previous paragraph; this is the most desirable
We would find some datum above the void but below the physical stratum of the object of discussion e.g. a phase-epoch of the universe; this would be satisfactory and valuable but would not be a substitute for the underlying logic of the previous paragraph
§Local / Universal | 9.28.03: add an emphasis that while it is necessary from the immediate perspective to include a focus on the local, that such focus illustrates and, certainly, does not suppress or diminish the universal; rather the local brings out and supports the universal; and the universal illuminates the local; they are mutually enhancing and supporting. This is consistent with the principle of meaning where an emphasis should be added that, not only are the local and universal both important but they are each empty [or, at least, incomplete] without the other. There is a hierarchy of localizations from phase-epoch of the universe to my immediate here-and-now and even parochial environment. Work out these considerations for the prologue and the main essay
The purposes of the present comment are [1] to ensure that the [discussion or treatment of the] local and the universal support each other rather than be in a detracting relationship, [2] that the narrative encourage clarity on this point, and [3] to separate what is local [though not essentially parochial] and important to human or animal experience or to the experience of an era from what is lasting and universal
Comment on local / universal | 12.2.03: in the Prologue and elsewhere I use the word “our” in relation to the world e.g. “our universe,” “our world” or “our experience.” This rather goes against the distinction between local and universal phases of the narrative and somehow suggests that the local is in fact the universal. A better construction is to refer to the local phase-epoch of the universe or to human or animal experience
On the Approach to Understanding Through the Void
On Cosmology and the Foundations of Physics
On Relations between Philosophy and the ‘Disciplines;’ especially Science
Are Human Beings Ethical in Nature?
Some Comments: Mind / Body; and Atomism
Problems in the Philosophy of Mind
Knowledge and its Role in Journey in Being
More on Journey in Being: Concept and Plan
On the Possibility of Science and the Origin of Dynamics and the Effectiveness of Mathematics
On the Synthesis of World and Idea
A Prerequisite to the Realization of Ultimate Being
The Study of Influence is History
Gettier Problem and the Nature of Knowledge
‘Eliminating’ the Concept[s] of Mind
On Criticism, Construction and the Ultimate
Corrections may also distributed among the general comments
§1.6.6.2 ¶1 s3 | 7.28.03: add “Without experience,”
§1.3.1.2 ¶1 s1 | 7.28.03: “One concern of philosophy, especially philosophy of the analytic variety, …”
§4.6.3 Title | 7.28.03: “The Origin of Theory and of its Possibility”
§1.6.6.6 ¶3 s4 | 7.29.03: change [up to the first semi-colon] to: Experience has the characteristic of being about something – and the aboutness is also called intensionality;
§1.6.6.6 ¶7 s4 | 7.29.03: change [up to the first semi-colon] to: Here are some ways in which physics may be incomplete. Referring forward to Cosmology, the universe may be irreducible to elementary particles and fields;
§1.6.6.7 ¶-1 | 7.29.03: add a footnote about the alternative idea of a third “substance” – as suggested in my essay Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness [in which I drew from Conceiving the Impossible: The Mind-Body Problem, Thomas Nagel, 1998]
§1.6.9.2 Item 4 ¶1 s-1 | 8.2.03: replace “and so one” by “and so on”
§1.6.11.4 Item 4 ¶2 s2 | 8.2.03: However, for truth to have actual significance their needs to be of knowledge states of affairs
§1.6.3.2 ¶9 s4 | 12.06.03: replace the phrase “is has a use that is similar” by “has a use that is similar”
§1.2.3 ¶Last s-3 | 12.24.03: change “one of a and b is zero” to “one of a and b is zero”
Add a section | 8.2.03: perhaps after §1.6.13 Cosmology, called “Adaptation and Evolution” [or something similar] that will include a discussion of life and, perhaps, incorporate Life in the title of the section. The following topics and ideas will be included:
Every entity or system is – as it is – in mutual adaptation with its environment. The entities and systems under consideration may be elementary particles, galaxies, solar systems, suns, bacteria, animals, organs… The environment of a system or entity includes all other systems or entities with which the original system or entity interacts [and with which it can enter into interaction?] The fact that I may identify my environment as including other human beings and animals rather than a set of eyes, arms, legs, organs and so on will have to do with the level of description and interest. Adaptation does not necessarily include any notion of perfection
As I have noted elsewhere, the idea of evolution is [among other things] an organizing principle: considering the environment as it is, evolution [along with the idea of common origins] gives us understanding of the environment and its various systems
To what degree can a considered account of mutual adaptation give understanding? In the account, adaptation will replace “evolution” and mutual interaction will replace “common origins.” The purpose of such an account is not to eliminate evolution or common origins as principles of understanding but to enhance understanding with additional principles. The account may be useful in providing an additional way of seeing; a way to avoid using the term “evolution” and its problematic connotations; and, therefore, a way of justifying evolution – since / if evolution and adaptation provide the same results. Regardless, it seems to me that a complete adaptational account will require reference to all characters: physiological, behavioral, mental, molecular and to all levels of grouping: particle – molecule, tissue and cell, organ, system, individual, group, species… and, likely, in the end, will require introduction of an ordering parameter that will be the basis of comparison of the different characters and groupings and that will turn out to be [equivalent to] time and the groupings along the axis of the ordering parameter will be not other than those found in the evolutionary series
The section will be the representative of Evolution and Design and Evolution, Design and the Absolute in Journey in Being
[The first application being to the general theory of Being]
General comments | 8.20.03: on the approach to understanding through the void / nothingness
An approach through which any culture, civilization or age can embed its special forms of knowledge, art, science, religion and magic in the absolute and the universal
A way of seeing or showing / an intermediate device to see or show that all / almost all actual laws and forms of being are contingent even if most interesting and most relevant to the phase-epoch of the universe… for any system of laws for a datum from the present phase-epoch of the universe, there is an infinity of other laws that agree on the datum but that are wildly different outside the datum and that includes being outside the phase-epoch. Thus, foundation in the void, too, is supported by some of the laws. This is a trivialization and is by no means a justification of the theory of the void including the principle of identity whose justification is otherwise
Laws as objects e.g. in defining the quantum vacuum as what is left when objects are [conceptually] taken away, the richness that results is due to not taking away quantum behavior [laws] itself…
General comments | 8.20.03: Cosmology and the foundations of physics
From the foundations in nothingness does it follow that all actual being will be material even if matter is rather different than in our phase-epoch? The question is not fully intelligible! From the notion that matter is a slack concept and a mode of description it appears likely that in any actual phase-epoch of being, there will be a material phase [of description.] Similarly, there will always be a mental phase… but [1] the mental and physical are alternate modes of description of the same object and do not refer to different objects or substances and [2] existence of high level matter and mind e.g. animals or higher is not guaranteed. What is prerequisite for the higher levels? Does high level mind necessitate some minimum material form, complexity, variety and so on?
What is intermediate between the void and actual [manifest] being? Form! It may be useful to review G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, 1969 and © 1972
The foundations of physical science: the following levels of generality / abstraction [ordered more to less] interact
Nothingness
Form
Laws of Form [form of form]
Range of cosmologies and physics [plural]
Physics of this phase-epoch of the universe
General comments | 8.20.03: on the relationship between Philosophy and the other “disciplines,” especially science [a one sentence reference to this point has been added to the Prologue §Horizons and Mileposts as ¶-3]
There has been a feeling that philosophy cannot instruct or even talk to science
The formal roots appear to be in a number of places including the thought of Wittgenstein who held that, Tractacus-Logico Philosophicus
“4.111 Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences
(The word “philosophy” must mean something which stands above or below but not alongside the natural sciences.)
Here, above and below do not [I think] have the connotation of superior or inferior but, rather, essentially distinct. There is no argument that there are distinctions to be had but it does not follow that the lines of demarcation are sharp and absolute and that there is no interaction
Other sources of the idea that philosophy cannot instruct science are in, for example, Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, who holds that philosophy is edifying [Wittgenstein held that it is therapeutic] but does not instruct or hold court over the other disciplines. There is, of course, truth to this but, again, there appears to be in the background some notion of absolute distinction and some hesitation to straddle boundaries – boundaries that, if taken as absolute, are artificial
Further sources of the idea are in cultural relativism, the incommensurability of theories even within science, in the dominance of science, in the objection of scientists to philosophers “philosophisizing about science,” in the lack of scientific training and familiarity with current scientific thinking and vocabulary that characterizes modern academic philosophy and university education in philosophy
However, even within the halls of science and despite disclaimers [e.g. Dirac’s injunction that it is the mathematics and not philosophy or concepts that determine the reality of theoretical physics,] it remains that there are concepts in science and that the scientist must from time to time wear a hat labeled “philosophical thought in progress.” Thus notion that science and philosophy cannot and should not communicate that seems to characterize much of modern science and philosophy is a result of territorialism and ignorance and is extremely artificial. This is not at all to say that science and philosophy must always be in communication; rather, huge amounts of scientific and philosophical activity can validly be carried on independently of each other. The point is, rather, that communication and, in some areas of endeavor, not only necessary, but actually does occur even when injunctions against it are in place and the way in which it occurs is e.g. when a scientist takes up the clarification of what it is that he or she is talking about
At various places in Journey in Being there is communication between science and philosophy. Perhaps the most stark one is, quoting from above
“General comments on the approach to understanding through the void / nothingness
An approach through which any culture, civilization or age can embed its special forms of knowledge, art, science, religion and magic in the absolute and the universal”
Which shows the embedding of our phase-epoch of the universe in the void and therefore a foundation of the physics of this world in ideas
Other places are in the development of the cosmology [cosmology “instructs” philosophy in showing models of creation; philosophy “instructs” cosmology by revealing the models as a form,] and, similarly, in the treatment of mind where, additionally, analysis of emotion and other mental functions as concepts enhances both understanding and science
General comments | 8.26.03: on mental functions
Add the following distinctions for emotion to the sections on mind and its dimensions
Felt emotion, emotional economy and congruence to reality [which, naturally, involves cognition;] expressed emotion, emotional economy / ecology and congruence to feeling
Range, fluidity and intensity as parameters of feeling-emotion; and as determinants of mood
The variety of perceptual modes [sight, sound…] correspond to [or are a practical subset of] the system of effects in the environment; do something similar for emotion-feeling as the perception of internal states
A source for the previous point was the consideration of the variety of mental disturbance and its basis in the variety of mental function
List such sources i.e. principles of thought about the variety of mental function; for example another principle is the free / bound distinction and its origin and logic
Apply to cognition
Further consider implications for variety of mental function / disorder
General comments | 8.27.03: are human beings ethical?
Of course, this implies the co-question, “What is ethics?” or, “What is it to be ethical?”
The immediate occasion for the thought is the often widespread substitution, in a variety of social situations, of the appearance of ethical behavior for true ethical behavior
Maintaining an appearance is itself a constraint on behavior and often results in behavior that is at least partially the same as ethical behavior
Additionally, I speculate that the attempt to give an appearance of ethical behavior requires some degree of simulation of true ethical thought and intent and this results in some degree of true ethical intent
Now some questions:
Do all human motivations and actions fall under the umbrella of the ethical? I.e. does every motive or action have an ethical dimension? If the answer is “no” then there are some motives and actions that are neither right nor wrong. I could, for example, say that the play of children is not inherently ethical although some acts within the play of children are ethical and that adult overview of the play of children is ethical. Some of the reasons that the play of children lacks an inherent ethical dimension are also reasons why some adult play is ethical: adults are not completely self determined; and while children are in the process of developing or refining a sense of ethics, adults may need a holiday from morals for rejuvenation and in order that they may re-enter the ethical arena with fresh energy – this may, of course, be a statement regarding the seriousness with which morals may be held rather than the intrinsic aspect of any moral sense. Regardless, for an adult to continue to play while a neighbor or passer by is injured is, at least, a moral deficit. Well, then, there are always people who are starving, dying of AIDS, suffering the ravages of war – so should anyone ever play? It is probably true that all cessation of play would not help those in pain. Additionally, the existence of evil in the world does not imply that the only good is effort toward the cessation of evil. Rather, the intrinsic good – including the enjoyment of play – should also be cultivated. Some may be producers of what is good and fine [art] and others may be uplifted by it. All may / should participate in some simple and intrinsic good and enjoyment. There are occasions for solemnity when we remember those who suffer. All elements enter into consciousness and then into the unconscious where they are held and which inform and effect behavior: when there is an opportunity to have some intrinsic good that is enjoyed; when there is an occasion to alleviate suffering that is undertaken – all, perhaps with a lightness of spirit or, at least, without an excess of solemnity. Going to church on Sundays has been criticized; but, in the best of situations and that excludes hypocrisy, one cannot be in church at all times or consciously occupied with morals at all times but the effect of church enters into behavior both consciously and unconsciously [except for ministry, without which there would be no institutional religion, centering one’s life around religion is, in some ways, a peculiar phenomenon]
So what, then, is it to be ethical? There is the ethical sense – the rather innate sense under which right is done, wrong avoided; then there is reflection upon the ethical sense and ethical behavior – which is significantly occasioned, in the first place, by changing social and other arrangements so that the ethical sense and tradition which includes myth and stories and, also, explicit morals become inadequate; and, then there is the cultivation of ethical thought in somewhat free floating form as in the branch of philosophy called ethics and divided into ethics and meta-ethics. However, if the ethical sense is regarded as real ethics, then reflection, myth and philosophy are meta-ethical; and, in this sense, the meaning of “meta-ethical” is different from the traditional meaning in which “meta-ethics” is a branch of ethics / philosophy. Since the ethical sense is both intrinsic and occurs in interaction with others the ethical is both in the sense and in the inter-human effects upon the sense and that includes the stories, myth and philosophy and, therefore, the distinction between ethics and meta-ethics is somewhat arbitrary even if clear from the disciplinary point of view. What is the domain and sway of the ethical? I.e. is every action, motive and intent ethical and should one always carry a concern for morals… or is there such a thing as pure behavior [dancing because dance is enjoyed, sex because sex is wonderful…] and not tinged, over and above the enjoyment, with a moral sense? There is an implication here that ethics should be pluralistic: hedonism and utilitarianism, for example, are not good as monistic ethics but may co-exist and are irreducible
General comments | 8.27.03: politics and ethics
Given the difficulties of all political systems, especially of democracy and its promise, what are the fundamental joint social, economic, political and ethical issues? I am not going to attempt an answer right here except to suggest that the questions include the following concerns: human good and human play, kind and degree of arrangement productive of the good, the concerns of stability and an anarchistic arrangement in an implicitly or explicitly fascistic world, the size of political units, the means of procurement of goods, and living arrangements; and the meta-issue of whether human intelligence can substitute for or improve upon natural arrangements by which I do not mean to exclude intelligence, institution or artifact but only to say that such intelligences, institutions and artifacts are always in interaction whose forces are not fully subject to intelligence… and to say that they are individually and together in interaction with the world at large and that includes the realm of what is called nature whose forces are also not fully subject to intelligence and artifact. [The systems of mutual interaction and interaction with the world can be viewed as one system]
Additional comments | 9.11.03: on the possibility of theory
Date-wise, these comments are out of sequence but are placed here since they relate to the previous point
The question of the possibility of theory is as follows. One idea of theory is that it is a statement of reality. Of course, theory is more than that for the idea behind theory is to state general truths and reveal general patterns and, so theory is effective in [1] providing insight and [2] representing much data with a much smaller set of data together with the theory. The assumption is that patterns exist either universally or locally and so the theory is either universal or local. The question of the assumption is valid and pertinent to the use and exaltation This, however, is not the real question of theory being posed here
Suppose that we want to do something with theory. On the assumption that theory is about the world or a phase of the world we can then say that if so and so then from the theory we can assert such and such. However, perception and thought are not essentially like that. The origins of perception and thought are in interaction with the world rather than being about the world. Later, due, in part, to validity, we come to have that kind of picture of the interaction of thought and action. But the picture is not universal. Not only is there the Wittgensteinian question of the finality or completability of theory, its extractability from use but there is also the question of whether thought is about the world… of course it is but that is only to a degree and not universal. In the origin, thought and language were mediums of affecting action and others [and self] and the exaltation of aboutness came later with the growth of human intelligence and the origin and elaboration of language. But what is valid in some domains is not universalizable and so there is the question of whether design in politics is and can be rational
An occasion for the questions is the lack of a match between what we think the world should be like and what it is like. Frustration is endemic but it must have at root an assumption that the situation could be changed. But can it? One can have faith that it can or hold to a skeptical position. But the truth may be beyond faith and skepticism
In addition to the inseparability of thought / communication addressed here, there are also questions of whether knowledge, command or imperative, ethics and politics and so on are separable
§1.6.13.8 Item 3 | 8.29.03: add comments on atomism
In a continuum, every element contains structure. Therefore, every element may have some time associated with it; and, every element may have interactions with other elements that are due to the structure of the element and require no interactivity pasted on in an ad hoc way
Every appearance of atomism can be the result of a continuum – as is known by analogy from the theory of eigenvalues [a particular case of which is the theory of vibrations in continuous media] and quantum mechanics. Similarly, cannot every appearance of anatomism be the result of an atomism? This is not clear for the essence of atomism is in two parts [1] discreteness which can be the manifestation of a continuum, and [2] the existence of a smallest material unit which stands in contradiction to anatomism. It is possible to give up [2] and conceive material reality as a system of particles where every particle has sub-particles
However, the continuum description seems to be most fundamental because, first, it requires no special assumption of sub-structure and, second, it is more general and includes atomistic descriptions and manifestations as a special case
Especially clarify the distinctions: continuum vs. discretum | atomism vs. anatomism vs. holism | and the nature of interaction
On reflection, the distinction between continuum and discrete distributions is false for an atom can be seen as a distribution with zero-density in places where the atom is not. Thus atomism per se is not a particularly enlightening or interesting hypothesis i.e. in a given phase-epoch of the universe it may turn out that there are true “atoms” i.e. indivisibles but that is a posteriori rather than a priori. If therefore, we think of atomism as the existence of possibly compound elements of matter there is no fundamental distinction between atomism and continuum for within each atom there may be sub-atoms
The existence of fields and laws is a form of holism co-existing with atoms. We thus begin to suspect and see the falseness of the distinctions noted above
Generally, in Journey in Being, any dependence on one form of the distinctions or on some mythology or on modern science or theoretical physics is, as far as general or universal considerations are concerned, only for purposes of illustration or for heuristic derivation of conclusions. The universal conclusions, however, are not dependent on the particular “assumptions” for they would go through without them. The easiest way to see this is from the falseness of the distinctions
§1.6.6.6 | 8.29.03: add comments on mind / body and atomism
Clarify the discussion as it stands especially with respect to its not being dependent on the completeness or completability of physics i.e. that the use of a hypothetical complete physics is an artifact of argument; add a comment to the effect that although the discussion emphasizes atomistic physics, it would go through in the more general material case of anatomism / continuum and even a holism
General comments | 9.2.03: foundations of physics
In the prologue I assert that the foundation of being in the void also provides a foundation for cosmology and physics. The nature of the foundation needs to be clarified somewhat. At minimum, it should be explained that the foundation is in principle
How would a foundation for the physics of this phase-epoch result i.e. what minimum information / assumption would result in our physics?
General comments | 9.2.03: nothingness
What word should I use: void, nothing, nothingness, emptiness…? [see Words, Language, Metaphysics]
It is important that nothingness not be understood, merely, as the absence of things. For, if things are absent, it may seem that laws are still present – reflection may show the idea to be absurd – waiting to apply to anything that were placed in the void
However, what is a law? A law – in science and physics – is not something over and above the being of the entities of the universe. A law is not something that the entities of the universe “obey” or even follow even though we may see it that way with much good effect in use and application of the laws. A law is part of the being of the world or universe – or of a phase-epoch thereof – as much as is the material nature of being. A more accurate statement is that a law is part of our expression or formulation of the being of the world – of the patterns of being and becoming. Thus, “taking away” the matter of the universe [phase-epoch] does not leave the laws behind. This explains what I have said elsewhere [e.g. here] regarding “taking away” i.e. that the laws, too, must be eliminated for there to be nothingness. We think, sometimes, of laws as artifactual but they are not. True, laws and theories are overturned and therefore seem artifactual but it is not the true laws that are artifactual in this sense but only our expression of them
General comments | 9.3.03: Objects
The intuitive idea of an object may involve: concreteness, definiteness, sharp boundaries, fixed constitution, localization
In the development of the concept, none of these is necessary
General comments | 9.3.03: The Nature of Science
In the first place I am not aiming at a “definition.” This is not only because science is a complex activity that can be seen from a number of perspectives but also because the objective is to understand what science is and this occurs incrementally. Further, since the “meaning” of science is wound up with and to a significant degree contained in the activity of science, a complete definition is neither aimed at nor possible. Here is one place where Thomas Kuhn has made a definite contribution although it is not necessarily the case that he is the first person to have so understood science or complex objects including institutions in general
In the second place, while science is important, the approach used here can be employed for other institutions. This aim would not be satisfied by giving a definition
Third, science can be seen as a specific and limited kind of activity demarked by the disciplines of science and as rather exclusive in nature… or it can be understood as a very general approach which will be relatively broad and not defined by actual science alone; even in the latter case not every activity will be science but many activities thought not to be science will be seen to have a scientific component. Further, it will be possible to see what science and other creative and institutional endeavors have in common and where they diverge
What characterizes science?
The first approach to characterizing science will be to consider the so-called scientific method. Although science is empirical it is not merely empirical; for science is concerned with patterns and therefore experiments will confirm or disconfirm patterns. Where do the patterns come from? The old and Baconian concept of induction was that the patterns [laws] were inferred from data by inductive reasoning. But this is not how laws are arrived at; nor is it always possible for laws to be directly suggested by data. Simple laws such as a straight line may be so suggested. More generally, a law is hypothesized [which depends in part on imagination] and found to agree or disagree with data. [The popular idea that a single point of disagreement requires a law to be discarded requires modification; useful laws may continue to be used with care and, further, disagreement between new data and established law may cast doubt on the validity of the data… similar comments apply, also, to concepts and theories.] The law, however, is not the peak of scientific expression; science also depends on concepts and theories which are more general and come after the simpler laws. Again, concepts and theories do not follow from data but must be hypothesized; and hypotheses are suggested by data, laws, other concepts and theories and require imagination. The process can be formalized to suppress the imagination and emphasize method in the simple formula where hypothesis includes concepts, laws and theories:
1. Hypothesis
2. Test
3. Repeat
Of course, imagination is not actually suppressed but only formally. Imagination can be partially eliminated from the formal process by focusing on proof or justification but even though there is no ultimate method of justification although there are some methodologies that are useful
The method of science is also an open question even though it is not as fluid as science itself. Methodology is always being added to or otherwise modified. The method is open to elaboration, see Journey in Being, where it includes [deriving from the work of Roland Omnes] experimentation, conception, development and verification
Now, the details of scientific methodology and what constitutes proper subjects for investigation cannot and is not formulated in words and concepts alone. As Kuhn suggested, the actual practices arose in the development of science and are institutionalized and – at least partially – unspoken even though accessible to attempts at articulation. While such paradigmatic rules are necessary and useful, they may also become outdated and excessively rigid and authoritarian; to some extent this is in the nature of such rules since they are the expression of practice and learned in apprenticeship
What is the distinction between science and the humanities? The humanities are those branches of knowledge that concern themselves with human beings and their culture or with analytic and critical methods of inquiry derived from an appreciation of human values and of the unique ability of the human spirit to express itself. As a set of disciplines, the humanities include the study of all languages and literatures, the arts, history, and philosophy. Thus, while emotion may be appealed to in the in the humanities, emotion will not be used in the method of science. Of course, emotion may motivate scientific study and may be used in the thinking about the comparative utility of scientific and humanistic disciplines… and, emotion is a proper topic of scientific inquiry
Of the humanistic disciplines, science is closest to philosophy. Early in their histories, the studies that have become the scientific disciplines were part of philosophy. Natural philosophy referred to the study of nature; psychology separated from philosophy in the later 19th century. Later, the distinctions hardened as the disciplines and institutions developed their special interests, as it became apparent that philosophy was not necessary for the advance of science and, also, as parochialism set in. Careful study of the history of knowledge shows that during revolutionary periods in science, philosophical – especially conceptual – thought becomes important and thus the distinction is not complete. Also, philosophy remains dependent upon science in enquiries such as general cosmology. Thus there are distinct subject matters and common interests which situation is no different than before the separation; and, where the interaction is important, hybrid disciplines develop e.g. philosophy of science, philosophical psychology and so on. Today, while the core of science emphasizes the hypothetical-critical study of the world in its elementary terms [matter, life, the elements of mind,] philosophy emphasizes the hypothetical-critical study of the most general aspects of the world and, especially, ideas and the content of thought. Naturally, the critical elements are different: science emphasizes empirical test and mathematics, philosophy emphasizes analysis. The social sciences and psychology lie in-between
What are the status of science and the study of art relative to each other? In both cases, hypotheses are essential and critical elements are present but different in character. The study of art necessarily involves the study of wholes without essential atomism; cultural is important in appreciation even though there may be universals in art; and emotion-feeling enter into art criticism
What about science and art? Clearly, art and science are quite far apart but still have similar elements. First some distinctions: while science and the study of art have subject matters – the natural world [conceived as including society and mind] and art respectively but art need not have a subject matter. Art includes the expression of feeling and, even when there is a subject matter, it may be peripheral or expressed indirectly and not even consciously; on the other hand, science is not about the expression of feeling and emphasizes reason, empirical work and mathematics. However, the imagination in both art and science may be symbolic and iconic and occur at sub-conscious levels; and, both scientific theories and works of art may have “incubation” and trial versions that are corrected or improved
It is obviously repressive to expect art and science to fit the same mold; and the requirement that the approach to life be scientific would be limiting and much friction is generated by misunderstanding and by repressive / grandiose approaches that are exaggerated by the dominance of science and analyticity in modern culture. There is no reason to expect or want everything to be artistic or everything to be scientific; or to seek the elimination of either. If my approach to life had to be one but not the other I would choose the artistic; but it does not have to be one or the other and, if I had to characterize my approach with a common label I would use ‘existential’ but stripped of any unnecessary philosophical or cultish overtones. But I would not label my approach for I do not want to essentialize or limit it; I would say, simply, that, for me, the important things are friends and love, the [my] journey into all being and their details, ideas and nature
General comments | 9.11.03: Categories of Being
Check: Category of being [local copy] and Being [local copy.] Research related work from Aristotle to the present and merge with Journey in Being
Principles of Understanding and Explanation
Philosophy Time and its Place in Cosmology and the Theory of Being
Sources | 9.17.03: Philosophy of Time
Incorporate: Time from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [local copy,] Philosophy of Time on John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart’s arguments for the non-existence of time [local copy,] Quentin Smith on the philosophy of time, Links from Google on Time and Timelessness [in the Philosophy of Science > Philosophy of Physics > Time and Timelessness directory,] Philosophy of Time [Google Search,] Philosophy of Time [AlltheWeb Search]
General comments | 9.18.03: The Philosophy of Time
Plan: Extend the following to space-time-matter; incorporate into Journey in Being [/outline below]
First, some Principles of Understanding and Explanation
Use a field of concepts: we would not actually expect to have an independently standing philosophy of time; rather we will have a philosophy of being, of cosmology or of physics and so on out of which would fall and be created an understanding of time… this does not mean that everything interacts to the point of indistinguishability but [a] we should allow, in advance, for interaction and [b] we expect additional insight from co-consideration of all the concepts in the field
Principles of knowledge: what do we need to do to separate out [and do we so need to make separation of] our enmeshment in the world or, rather, our local environment? Remember the nature of concepts, the forms of intuition and symbolic expression – their interaction and advance
The use of metaphysics: we modify the idea that metaphysics is impossible to “things may not be what they seem to be in the intuition including art but focusing on the in-tuition and symbolic expression i.e. in science and analysis puts us on the way to truth that is not limited to the forms and capabilities of the intuition – which limitation is the fundamental one that is assumed in positivism, empiricism and Kantian idealism… ” and, therefore, review of ideas and their history / community is important but not all ideas or considerations will remain in the end and few, if any, will remain untouched or unmodified
The principle of construction: too many, though not all writers today do just what was implied in the previous principle – they review current thought and the history of thought regarding a topic and leave it as one or a number of grand mysteries along with the impression that enough has been said i.e. construction, though eschewed, is implied and implicit… we must also build even as we exalt in the contemplation of mystery. And, examples of universalization have been set in – in Journey in Being – the construction of cosmology and the understanding of mind – these can serve as paradigms; further, principles of universal construction have been considered that include the transcendental analytic and transcendental logic along with the synthesis of symbolic conception with intuition subject to critical comparison against the world
The use of the idea of slackness in concepts corresponding to an underdetermination of being: as has been noted such slackness in concepts is a virtue when the being in question is underdetermined. Now, the idea that a being is undetermined is without meaning until it is pointed out that the underdetermination is relative to what thought, intuition or convention may ascribe to the being of the entity in question. Thus, time may be thought to be a continuum and infinitely divisible and debate may ensue including reference to, e.g., coarseness due to quantum effects… however, it may be unnecessary and uninformative – even misleading – to suggest that time is or is not a continuum or coarse at small enough intervals… and, instead, given the origin of a single, dominant and universal-like time in the coalescing or common origin of a stable universe such distinctions [continuum vs. discretum] may be locally practical to consider but universally irrelevant. Note that I when refer to a local scene I may be referring to our causal or quasi-causal phase-epoch of the entire universe of being that we sometimes refer to as “the universe” when we are, in fact, referring to the phase-epoch in question. Especially in going from the local to the universal, the concrete gives way to the underdetermined and indeterminate, the singular to the plural and the existent to the potential. Note, however, as in the case of mind as discussed in Journey in Being, the indeterminateness in object and incomplete determination of concept is not restricted to the universal but to [many of] our most immediately apprehended objects or forms of being e.g. mind and matter
The tension between science and philosophy: this gives way to a communication between concept and object [concept includes theoretical consistency and object focus includes the empirical i.e. the need to be real.] The distinction between science and philosophy of nature, between scientist and philosopher which has been exalted into a sometimes antagonism is recognized to be a blurred distinction with poles but no sharp division that corresponds to academic custom
The unification of principles: such principles have been enunciated elsewhere e.g. in the discussion of mind in Journey in Being – all such principles should be gathered together and applied uniformly to all cases. Uniform application means tailoring according to need; and use of a field of concepts as necessary and efficient. Additionally such codifications will apply not only to the study of nature [mind, matter…] and ideas [concepts, knowledge] but also to institutions that include science, the disciplines… and to the more general study of society including politics, economics and their institutions [here, law is considered to be part of politics]
The use of philosophy: i.e. of the philosophical, especially the analytic approaches. A simple observation: in terms of actual understanding – especially since it requires a balance among intuition, action and analysis which includes imagination – there can be too much philosophy especially analysis or too much science. This is not meant to be a critical statement although there are implied criticisms of certain endeavors and it is emphatically not intended to be a repressive proscription for there is a place for all kinds of activity and kinds of individual [within reason] and including the purely analytical and the purely critical i.e. understanding itself benefits from a plurality of kinds of persons and attitudes and the forward motion, in general, is a function of the interplay and does not come under the rule of any one kind; and, the actual process of guiding the balance of analysis, experiment and intuition is itself experimental with trial and correction coming in to play. A further reason for my not wanting to be insistent is that understanding is not the only goal of philosophy and, especially, of science – the values of science and philosophy are multimodal and include the tacit and the implicit… I have written on this elsewhere. Regarding my orientation I find that I there is a balance between intuition, experience and analysis – not a fixed one but a dynamic balance that changes with time and the need of the occasion and my cumulative experience and, no doubt, my personal orientation at the time. So, then, where does or should the balance between intuition and analysis lie? In the first place, although the philosophical spirit must be to include a critical attitude toward all things [in principle, and as a way to move forward – to relate the known to the unknown… and, not in general, merely or even primarily to be critical even though is the valid orientation of some individuals] it is also important to be secure in and at least accept that we know what we know. And, although there will be friction between the intuitively and the analytically known, it is at the border between the synthetic or the intuitive and the analytic that the dynamic balance lives and must play. Often, we here from someone talking about some important concept that “We all know what it is but when we come to describe or define it then we are at a loss.” Generally, the knowledge referred to in saying that “we all know what it is” is, roughly, comprised of two interactive aspects – the intuition and tacit knowledge of correct behavior regarding the concept e.g. time. Naturally, it does not follow that analytic expression of the concept in a universal context is easy or even possible; note that the difficulty is two-fold: analytic expression and universalization. Now, it does not follow that the intuition / tacit knowledge is inferior or should be abandoned or that individuals should stop behaving as though they know of what they talk; but this in turn does not imply that the intuition is universal with regard to context and precision. The limitations on the tacit do not require that it be replaced by the analytic. It also does not follow that the analytic is useless or should be avoided although it is understandable how the reaction against the analytic may come about especially when some analyst assumes a superior attitude or when someone else mistakes the analyst’s enthusiasm for superiority. Often in the history of ideas, what may start as esoteric analysis is found to be useful, to extend the intuition and becomes part of common intuition. Properly seen, the intuition and analysis interact and inform each other in the forward movement of understanding
Now, comments on the Philosophy Time and its Place in Cosmology and the Theory of Being
The intuition of time: the intuition of time is more than just the perception of time or the feeling that one is living in time or that time is passing or flowing. Here, intuition is used in Kant’s sense: it is not mere sensing, it is not anything like a hunch nor does it have anything to do with the rigorous vs. non-rigorous distinction and it is not a special sense that some develop especially well to see or sense things that others do not. Here, intuition is not any one of these valid but distinct meanings of the word “intuition.” Intuition in Kant’s sense are forms, primarily of perception, that structure or – speaking non-structurally – that give the world its special form or color as it appears; thus intuition here does not stand against thought, reason, description or science or logic but is continuous with them. The intuition of time is the sense of time that is required for the perception of time as it is perceived. What is the pure intuition of time? It is not clear that it is pure if that means that it is not influenced by mood, conception, pre-conception and that includes individual and cultural factors in addition to the biological ones. We may refer to the intuition of time as psychological time
Psychological time: this appears to have a number of features that are felt with more or less strength or conviction according to individual and culture. The features include the flow of time; the existence of past, present and future; a sense of unidirectionality [the arrow of time] associated with time e.g. that although it appears that most of the fundamental laws of physics i.e. excluding thermodynamics are reversible in time, events such as the scrambling differently colored sets of beads is irreversible… note that the sense of flow of time from future to present to past of the previous point is another but distinct arrow of time that is not referred to in this point; the feeling that time is linear or circular – which senses depend on the important phenomena of the life and culture of an individual and of which a special case is timelessness or the suspension of time… of course, sense of linearity, circularity and suspension may occur in the same individual and culture depending on the occasion or kinds of events that are held as important… and, further, the proclamations of an individual – even what the individual thinks about his or her experience – are distinct from though interactive with the actual experiences… while timelessness and circularity of time are more common in hunter-gatherer communities, even in modern societies there are the philosophies and attitudes of karma and of the eternal return; the sense of continuity or disjointedness of time; the common intuition, at least in western culture that time and space are distinct and are vehicles or containers for events and objects; finally, there is the intuition that prior events cause future ones [this is not only notion of cause even in physics as in e.g. force causing motion]
Physical time and its relation to psychological time: this is the time of the physical world. In order to have a coherent concept of physical time it is necessary to have a coherent and self-contained theory of physical processes and it will help if the theory is universal… of course, a number of the great dynamical theories of physics have been held to be universal and that is natural because it is part of the greatness of the theories that they are more or less co-extensive with the universe of the known with the natural exceptions that regard phenomena whose level or mode of description is alien to the mode of the physical theory even if all objects are physical objects… note that it is this very co-extensivity that encourages the implicit belief that all objects are physical but this is illicit since it is the same co-extensivity that makes it impossible to see [clearly] beyond the universe of the conceptual and the empirical of an era… clearly not all objects are physical in the classical sense but regarding the modern sense [quantum and relativistic] there is no way to clearly and positively see beyond that from within modern culture. The first coherent and self-contained theory of physical processes was the mechanics of Isaac Newton. Newton provided a metaphysics of time and space as independent and absolute containers for objects and events: I refer to the Scholium of Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy where he begins with the famous words, “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from is own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external… ” Newton continued with a discussion of relative time that is not “true” time and continued to describe absolute or true space and relative space and absolute or true and relative motion. Although he was criticized by Leibniz, Newton argues cogent reasons for his pronouncements. The concept of time of Newton lends to conceiving time as absolute [which has two meanings: independent of observers and independent of events,] flowing, linear, continuous and reversible. It is in common observation and then in classical thermodynamics that time has an arrow: cream is mixed into coffee but is never seen to un-mix. The theory of statistical mechanics [developed largely by Boltzmann and based in Newtonian Mechanics] explains this in molecular terms: if the velocities of the molecules of the universe were reversed events would “go backwards” but finding the world in such a state of reversed velocities would imply that actually highly improbable distributions are highly probable… however, there is a result of Henri Poincare that suggests that dynamical systems will ultimately return [sufficiently closely] to their original state and the resolution of the paradox is that the theories that rule out such return are probabilistic – the probability of return is staggeringly low in “typical” amounts of time but not so given unlimited or very large amounts of time… thus, in a sense, and given the assumptions of Poincare’s result, time is circular. Is there causation in the sense of a prior event causing a later one, or of a force causing change? Such ascriptions of cause are possible but not necessary in physics; the notion of cause can be eliminated from physics but is also a useful heuristic principle. Thus the intuition of cause is not inconsistent with physics but is important to the individual due to the importance of agency that is not part of the language of physics but is validly part of the language of individuals – provided that the individual does not want to universalize [project] his or her experience. Is time a continuum? It is known that modern physics does not tell us what happens at intervals less than the Planck time of about 10-43 seconds and so it cannot be asserted on the basis of modern physics that for sufficiently short intervals, between every two instants there is another [a necessary condition for a continuum.] Is time independent of observers? From the theory of relativity it is not. However, in the theory of relativity, each “particle” that is sufficiently localized appears to have its own time that, within factors that depend on the forces, i.e. the effect of the entire universe, on it, is synchronized with every other particle [this permits, consistent with modern physics, a form of “time travel” that is measurable for particles but not practical for most significant effects for the lives of human beings.] Does time flow? Modern physics describes no flow of time. However, it appears that there are at least two metaphors for or intuitions of flow [1] as in the flow of a river and [2] as in the passing of time; and perhaps the latter is secondary but not therefore “invalid.” Much confusion is generated by conflating the metaphors; beyond that, intuition of the flow of time is indistinct from the intuition of change but this distinction is sometimes made in use. The intuitive argument that there is no flow of time but only a sequence of instants applies also to the flow of a river: there is a sequence of positions but no actual flow; however, the equations of physics that are formulated in terms of states can usually be reformulated in terms of “fluxes.” The question of “flow” is not as interesting as other issues of time
Relational vs. absolute concepts of time: according to Newton time and space are absolute. Even in classical physics, however, that time and change are or seem to be inextricably interwoven; it is true, though, that in classical mechanics arbitrarily stretching time makes the equations of mechanics more complex. In Einstein’s theory of gravitation space, time and matter are bound together as dynamic variables suggesting that the existence of spacetime is precisely as contingent as the existence of matter. This lends to the idea that spacetime is relational and not substantial; however, an interesting aspect of the history of physics is that often what starts as a descriptive or mathematical device is later found to have or becomes imbued with physical reality. A problem for a relational concept of spacetime [I am not sure why the term relational theory is used] is the putative existence of space and time where there are no actual objects without which even though there may be time there is no sign or measure of it. This is countered by positing possible objects or events. However, it is consistent with the notion of slack concepts / indeterminate objects that there are indeterminacies in spacetime; however, given how tightly woven our world appears to be such indeterminacy in our phase-epoch of the universe seems to be unlikely except at distances and times less than the Planck length and time. However, the absence of obviously material objects in a region of spacetime does not imply an absence of physical things: there are ubiquitous fields of force, there is the quantum vacuum… Below the Planck length and time or outside our phase-epoch there may be indeterminacies and discontinuities in spacetime [1] at least consistent with modern physics and [2] as real: this possibility is founded in the general cosmology of Journey in Being
General cosmology: “general” is distinguished from “physical.” In Journey in Being, the cosmology conveniently starts with nothingness that is an actual nothingness and bears little relation to the nothingness of Sartre or the no-thing of Heidegger that are word plays, psychological ploys and very superficially artifactual. Alternative terms are void and nothing – since in the state of nothingness there is no distinction between object and property but note the distinction between nothing and no-thing; other terms are the emptiness, the abyss of being [a little too metaphorical to be sufficiently neutral,] the Greek letter f pronounced “phi,” and the zero-state. In the void there is no being, no causation and no law. This follows if causation and law are thought of as modes of being but also since in the presence of law and causation there is not nothing. The vacuum of quantum physics is understood by removing objects in a thought experiment but not the laws themselves; the void is obtained by removing, similarly, not just objects but also the laws. That is rather artificial if we think of law and object as interwoven. We may distinguish Law and law; Law is what obtains e.g. the patterns and relations among events and objects; law is a reading and expression of Law. Incidentally Logos may be thought of as the possibilities of [forms] of being i.e. of Law. Now, clearly, Law is not at all like the laws of the statutes and of courts that are imposed. Law is not imposed but is, rather, as much the being of the universe or a phase-epoch thereof as its events and objects; Law is as much object as concrete objects. Therefore in removing all things to obtain the void we must also remove law and causation. This is not the vacuum of quantum physics in which the potential to become is based in the laws of quantum physics. There are, however, similarities. Since the void has no Law, no causation there are no limits except logical limits. Therefore, at once the void is equivalent to every possible state of being. Can the void exist? Provided care is taken to avoid contradiction it is not ruled out by logic. Thus the void exists is present with every particle of the universe [particle & void = particle] and, being without, limits may annihilate the particle; the entire phase-epoch, the entire universe may be annihilated. This is not an existential problem since being as we know it [and as we do not] is equivalent to and shows from the void. It is not a practical problem either for the being of our phase-epoch has the stability that makes it continue to exist; of course, annihilation is possible but from stability it is extremely improbable. However, there must be shadow worlds whose existence is ephemeral – worlds that do not even interact with ours [the probability of interaction is extremely, even colossally small] but that pass through ours and are passing through ours; and there must “be” worlds and forms of being that integrate forms [perhaps we are already integrated as we breath parts of the universe in and out.] We saw that the void co-exists with the universe and is also the residue when there is no being. Paradoxes arising from there being no being but there being the void are word play. Starting from these origins, Journey in Being shows how a world [phase-epoch] such as ours may arise from the void i.e. from within the heart of the universe as it exists. The integration of a phase-epoch and the coalescing of multiple disjointed times into one dominant time [that is the basis of thermodynamic and psychological time] is shown. “Time” in the foregoing may be replaced by spacetime or space-time-matter. Thus physical time may be linear, continuous [at scales above Planck’s,] and primarily singular in our world but is circular and more complex, disjointed and plural in general i.e. in the universe-at-large from which our world comes… In general spacetimematter [being] is slack/indeterminate-in-degrees but receives relative determination in a phase-epoch such as ours
The philosophy of time: i.e. of spacetimematter… we have not made specific reference to the philosophy of spacetimematter but have already covered as much of it as we need to provide a platform for a more detailed and tighter development
Paradoxes of time: there are various paradoxes associated with the idea that time is continuous. Most of these are associated with the Greek philosopher, Zeno of Elea c. 445 BC. The paradoxes are interesting and significant to the development of western thought especially the concepts of the continuum and of the limit process and summation of infinite series in mathematical analysis [calculus.] I will not discuss the paradoxes here because they have long since been resolved with exacting rigor using the ideas centering around those just mentioned
Relational vs. absolute concepts of time again: given the filling of the universe with being, even in the laws of our phase-epoch, spacetime may be thought of as material [regarding process as material] i.e. a parametrization of being. However, given that all being-as-known begins, in the life of an individual as distinct from the life of his or her population, everything-as-known [there is no ultimate distinction from everything] is projection [individual to world / world to individual] and any distinction of relational vs. absolute, of description vs. actual must break down. We have gotten away with discussing things without defining them
My sources: the foundation is the history of my own thought as recorded in Journey in Being where I have, I believe, gone significantly beyond anything that I have read. I have spent much time immersed in the modern culture of ideas. The excellent article, Time [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy], has been a source of some of the major topics of concern in the modern philosophy of time
General comments | 9.21.03: Problems in the Philosophy of Mind
Make sure that all problems are mentioned in one place [in one of the sections of mind] even if treated elsewhere. These problems include the fundamental ones: the classic mind-matter problem, the problem of mental causation; the basic problems of other minds [Theory of Mind, related Wittgensteinian issues, including privacy and solipsism] and mapping of the mental functions; and secondary problems such binding and object constancy. Make sure to identify all problems. Note that Theory of Mind is discussed in the third major section
General comments | 9.25.03: Comments on Knowledge and its Role in Journey in Being
Note that knowledge is discussed, primarily, in two places: in the first five sections of the main division, Metaphysics or Knowledge and Action and, second, in section 1.6.11 Metaphysics and the Possibility of Knowledge of the same division. Much of the following has received some discussion in Journey in Being. However, I want a clearer, more complete, consolidated articulation
First, the development of any concept is iterative with experience in the relevant domain and with any growth of the domain starting e.g. with the intuition of the concept and the corresponding domain. Further, since knowledge and concepts are concepts the growth of understanding of concepts will modify the way in which knowledge is viewed; this process will also be iterative. For example, we may want to go beyond the initial intuitive concept of knowledge and begin a process of formalization and enhancement of the intuition; further, since concepts may have essential slack, we will want to avoid unnecessary distinctions and concretizations fostered by the fact that [despite education of the understanding] our paradigm of knowledge may be our own possession of it
It is important to distinguish between the concept [which involves intuition or the actual concept and criteria] and object which in this case is the object itself. Of course, knowledge is not a monolithic concept but there are a number of distinctions such as occurrent vs. dispositional knowledge, knowledge of the body i.e. by immersion vs. knowledge by acquaintance vs. knowledge by description, intuitive vs. symbolic form and expression
We may start off with a very particular view of knowledge which may be conditioned especially that we experience knowledge from the inside. Though this is a valid and necessary place to start we may want to expand the scope of this view by way of generalization and abstraction; and to the extent that the view is misleading we may want also to detach from it; even where the view is not misleading, temporary detachment is useful. Generalization involves recognition that we, ourselves, have a number of modes of knowing of which the intuition may be of a limited set; then, the knowledge of other beings, actual and potential, may include kinds and modes with which we are not familiar. Such generalization does not necessarily involve shedding of the view of knowledge from the inside i.e. that our view of knowledge is initially conditioned by our experience of it. Thus we may want to talk in external terms about what it is for an organism to have knowledge; this may involve form / structure and relationship between internal and external form and it may involve behavior. It is key that such abstraction is not meant to replace the intuition but the abstract and the intuitive supplement each other in synergy. The view from the inside is not shed but it is placed in a broader context with which it is continuous; this also shows up what, in intuition, is limited, what is parochial and what is in error
In other words, we want to consider knowledge as an object. Thus we ask “what are the conditions for the possibility of knowledge such as sufficient stability [of the phase-epoch] of the universe for there to be states of affairs; and, then, the existence of organisms guarantees the presence of knowledge – “knowledge is adaptation and so on.” Additional conditions are necessary for higher or specialized modes of knowledge
My initial expectation and plan for the role of knowledge in the Journey in Being was for knowledge to be foundational. However, I found that the ideas that I wanted to be founded especially the Principle of Being do not require the foundation in knowledge of the kind that I wanted. Involved would have been an analysis of belief, the relation between knowledge and action, the nature of knowledge as an action principle under uncertainty where action was imperative, and the loss of opportunity from the requirement and [tacit] value and valuation that knowledge be certain and definite. Since, as mentioned, the foundation became unnecessary, the developments regarding knowledge became unnecessary from that point of view. However, the developments – still requiring careful analysis, completion and consolidation – remain interesting especially for their independent outcome and the implications for the nature and uses of knowledge and belief. At the same time the new developments regarding the principle of identity, the foundation in the void provide some justification for the new ideas in knowledge and belief that I sought. Additionally, while the foundation for the principle of identity was not necessary a foundation for the means and ethics of realization may still be necessary or useful [as supplement to experiment in transformation via showing the possibilities and that they are possibilities] and requires further thought. In any case, rather than having one principle or another [experiment, knowledge, principle of identity] be foundational, they are all found to interact and be mutually supporting in the forward motion of being
Consolidate all unification of principles [those above and in Journey in Being and elsewhere] and apply as occasioned
General comments | 9.28.03: Concepts and slackness
Consolidate all material on concepts / slackness
Is “slack” the best word to use
What is it for a concept to be slack? Generally, the idea corresponds to the concept for an object that does not have the concreteness that we usually associate with material objects [but note that even objects that seem concrete are not so – almost regardless of how the metaphor of concreteness is interpreted] and often associate even with non-concrete things such as time, self, government, knowledge and so on. Here are some specific ways in which concepts are slack:
It is not true that all objects either do or do not fall under the concept
It is not true that the concept as understood is validly capable of projection to the universal; in this case it is the ideal concept rather than the actual one that is slack
General comments | 9.28.03: the culture of fear. The following [local rather than universal] material goes to Phase IV – Social Action etc.
In an attempt to understand the current socio-political situation and process the mood in America has been called a “culture of fear.”
A more complete characterization is as follows: fear, suspicion, poverty of the self [spirit,] self-centeredness if not selfishness, adversarial rather than cooperative attitudes, a slave attitude towards the master and to the law. Quick fix solutions are sought. The solution to a problem is often to injure someone: someone else or oneself – “kick some ass” or have “one’s ass whipped.” Law enforcement and law breakers become more and more violent in a cycle of mutual escalation. More than anywhere else in the ‘civilized’ world, people are behind bars [England is second.] You argue that this is not true; that punishment and incarceration is a necessary part of keeping our lives, families and living environments safe, is part of the war on crime; e.g. it has been argued by the Department of Justice in Texas where penalties are among the harshest that the harshness of penalties is correlated with a drop in crime rate. Even if true – and it may be true although I question the data collection and interpretation used in politics generally and by Departments of Justice in particular – the general conclusion as to the necessity of harsh penalties and the fear from and war upon crime do not at all follow for it then severely needs to be explained why the crime rate in America with its harshest penal system in the ‘civilized’ world has, by far, the highest crime rate, is by far most violent in its internal relations. And as regards fear and the war upon crime this in large measure, merely a vote getting measure and one that detracts from what politicians ‘should’ be doing especially focusing on equality, on opportunity, on divesting power among the people instead of accumulating and hanging on to it. Casual behavior becomes petty wrongdoing and [then] petty wrongdoing becomes severely criminal. Meanwhile true criminals [measured by amount of harm done] are free to go about their business. Attitudes to justice are characterized by punishment, revenge, and, instead of magnanimity, a pettiness that diminishes everyone; government is cut off from the people and, in no small part, because people are cut off from one another and the individual from him or her self. The culture or even cult of fear permits the establishment and nourishment of the master and slave culture, the entrapment of the slave by the master in a life cycle of petty actualities, and the joyous acceptance by the slave of the suppression and impoverishment by the master. Master and slave are distinguished by their physical power; they have in common an unspoken pact to rape the world – without and within – beyond the borders, an exaltation of the trivial, and an impoverishment of meaning – and of meanings, of spirit, of being and of true joy
General comments | 12.24.03: Journey in Being: Concept and Plan
These comments on What is Journey in Being and an outline for it are placed out of order because they preface material written earlier
What is Journey in Being?
The Concept
In the first place Journey in Being is an investigation of the possibilities of being: what forms or kinds of being are realizable?
What forms or kinds of being are realizable or possible in general?
What forms or kinds are available to human being?
What forms or kinds are worthwhile attempting to realize, what are ethical?
Rather than being a theoretical or simply experimental investigation, it is also a Journey
The answers to questions such as “What forms of being are realizable or possible?” may not be known in advance. There is an iteration or interactive process among ideas, experiment and transformations of being
The evolution of ideas is a transformation of being and also involves a journey. The history of the universe, the history of life and of civilization are transformations or journeys in being. However, two essential points to the Journey are [1] it is not restricted to ideas or to history and evolution; rather, the Journey is explicitly a Journey of search and transformation in being; [2] transformations of the very being of who or what undertakes the journey are sought: these include ideas, technology, the evolutionary process but also and especially what might be called a mutation of being. It is significant that the idea of mutation as used here is not at all restricted to random experiment or selection of serendipitous events but also includes the use of ideas, knowledge, design toward intermediate and ultimate ends and planning
Thus Journey in Being includes the academic enterprise but also goes beyond it
As far as ideas are concerned the Journey goes beyond the academic enterprise in its use of a variety of conceptual schemes. Fundamental among these is the use of the void or nothingness. The idea is not new but the concept of the void as developed is new in significant ways. This permits a universal foundation to ideas
Ideas as ideas are limited for expression of an idea requires actualization or experiment; further, if an individual “knew everything” there is a sense in which his or her being is little changed. Therefore explicit transformation of the being in all its modalities [e.g. physical] is necessary
A number of elements are involved in the transformations. First, the foundation in the void makes possible an understanding of the forms of being and their accessibility; and it places what is sometimes referred to as “our universe” in the total universe of being: “our universe” is but one of infinitely many possibilities and this expands the understanding of the possibilities of being to an infinite degree. Ideas and transformations are interactive but pure experiments are also possible. Secondly, I refer to, synthesize and use ideas from a variety of traditions in transformation and belief: from Shamanism to Yoga to Mysticism. Finally, I develop and use an approach to transformation The Dynamics of Being that is a fundamental transformational and integrative principle
The Format
The format of Journey in Being is that of an individual who undertakes the journey as described above. The individual searches through the traditions of knowledge, discipline and transformation. The individual need not be a single human being but could be a group or society. For every journey involves an intersection between the particular and the universal
Journey in Being begins with my journey; however, there is an attempt to go beyond the individual, myself, through contact with the traditions of knowledge and transformation and through sharing the journey as in Action, Influence, Charisma and Change
Plan and Outline
The plan is already established; the first stage is knowledge and metaphysics
I sought to found metaphysics and knowledge in an analysis of knowledge; however, I have found that though the analysis will be useful it is necessary in the way that I originally thought. Perhaps the most fundamental analysis of knowledge is an enhance Kantian analysis. Such an analysis would start with Kant’s analysis of perception; instead of Kant’s analysis of conceptual knowledge – the Transcendental Analytic – there would be an analysis in terms of what has become commonplace since Kant, i.e. the revisability of knowledge. Regarding the revisability of knowledge it is not so much that e.g. scientific theories are wrong [although even within their domain they are excellent approximations – sometimes so excellent that they are accurate to current experimental accuracy] but rather that as domains [extension, energies, smallness] are pushed forward, what had been adequate in the restricted domains becomes inadequate. There are two additional Kantian questions: that of the Transcendental Dialectic, the possibility of metaphysics outside of experience that Kant repudiates; and that of the knowability of the noumenon which, too, Kant repudiates. Regarding the possibility of metaphysics outside of experience, note that in the history of ideas, contemplation of such realms has made for receptivity to new experience; secondly, there is what I call transcendental logic briefly discussed in History of Western Philosophy which, with related ideas, makes possible certain kinds of transcendent metaphysics; thirdly, a transcendent concept e.g. God also involves a loose idea to which many possible concepts correspond some of which may have real significance in light of transcendental logic and the theory of the void; finally, the idea of metaphysics outside experience is precisely what is involved in the “forward” motion of science; these different concerns are not distinct. Regarding the noumenon, within the Kantian analysis we may infer it even though we do not know it directly; also see Eliminating the Distinction Between the Noumenon and the Phenomenon. Also note that the theory of the void questions the limits to experience; this point needs further analysis
The first stage is, in addition to intrinsic interest in transformation, preparation for the second stage. Ideas reveal possibilities, experiment confirms possibility; and together, the two elements push forward the forms of being realized and realizable
The second stage is the Experiments in the Transformation of Being
The first two stages are the major components of the journey; the next two are illustrative
The third stage is experiment with the variety of being: through ideas and through analysis and experiment with artifacts
The final stage is that of group enterprise: to continue and to share the journey; and as an example of being
General comments | 12.17.03: On the Possibility of Science and the Origin of Dynamics and the Effectiveness of Mathematics
On the Possibility of Science and on the Origin of Dynamics: “in the beginning” there is the void where there is no causation, no pattern, no law, and no necessity other than logical necessity. Then: the chaotic and fluctuating origin of being. The requirements for more than transient existence are: [1] becoming which means that absolute stability is not possible for absolute stability allows no becoming or decaying or change; [2] symmetry for sufficient stability but, by the foregoing, not absolute symmetry. The requirements for variety include an interactive population of “elements” i.e. a system of particles in interaction or, in other words, a field with singularities. Note, of course, the non-distinction between the particle-field and field-singularity descriptions; and also note that “particle” can be replaced by “concentration” and by m-dimensional manifold, m < n, in n-space. Elementary dynamics is possible due to lack of complete symmetry: dynamics is created in origins. Aggregate dynamics is possible due to interactivity of the populations and is just elementary dynamics for populations; this since the interactivity is created in origins. However, this makes clear that the aggregate and the elementary are distinct only for certain purposes that are local even within a phase-epoch. In the foregoing lie the origin of physics and a hint about the possibility of mathematical description of physics [symmetry and its incompleteness.] With sufficient variety, structure may be built upon structure; here lies a hint about the descriptive and conceptual rather than mathematical nature of biology; of course, the distinction is not complete and the possibility of a fundamentally mathematical biology or social science is not excluded by the argument. The origin and creation of time: I have used this paradox like phrase before; however there is no paradox: the details of the discussion are in Journey in Being. There are multiple transient times associated with every elementary instance of manifestation from the void; when a stable, interacting population occurs it has or may have a single dominant time in its phase. This does not mean that there are no other times but that they are vastly subordinate. If the unitary aspect of a phase-epoch spreads it may subsume the transient times of the shadow existence at the borders. What of two phase-epochs, each with its own time? That appears to contain the seeds of paradox but it does not for the two phases may interact weakly or even if they do not there is the potential to interact at some future time; and if they do not then each phase-epoch has no relative existence for the other
On the Effectiveness of Mathematics: mathematics is the science of structure; effective mathematics will be about basic structure while mathematics of complex structures will be possible but not necessary [to finite minds.] Fundamental structures are symmetric; hence the effectiveness of mathematics in the elementary structures of nature i.e. in physics. Recall, here, Wittgenstein’s comment that form is the possibility of structure; and, from Journey in Being, Logos is the science of possibility or, alternately, the collection of all forms; mathematics is a symbolic but incomplete representation and the universe [being] an actualization of Logos
It is not necessary to posit a separate world – LOGOS; but if it that is done then realize that LOGOS is omnipresent like the void
General comments | 12.17.03: On the synthesis of World and Idea
[I occasionally refer to God in the following discussion. This is altogether unnecessary to the rational development of the arguments. One reason for the reference is bound to the historical significance of the God in the development of the arguments – reference to God is a way to connect to and place the arguments in mutual relation. A second reason is to connect with a discussion in Journey in Being of the possibilities of God as a being intermediate between human / animal being and the totality of all being and existence. As far as the argument here is concerned, the word “God” can be easily eliminated without loss]
The Kantian Synthesis as one summit from which to view philosophical understanding: Philosophy continues in a certain trajectory until the synthesis of Kant and Schopenhauer. First, philosophy seeks to transcend metaphor in the understanding of the world; the first attempts remain metaphorical in language e.g. Thales’ idea that the original substance is water; however the conception is essentially though not explicitly symbolic; I note but do not give much weight to the idea that all knowledge is metaphor –if all is metaphor then, on account of the metaphier-metaphrand relation, nothing is metaphor– although it is clearly valid that in some processes one metaphor is replaced by another, perhaps more general or even universal, metaphor; note, also, that while Thales’ idea is not necessarily new, it does mark the origin of a continuous and recorded tradition. Immediately, philosophers ask about the origin and validity of such knowledge and there are two immediate responses. The empiricist tradition seeks origin of knowledge in experience while the idealist tradition holds that ideas of the world are not completely dependent on or completely formed out of experience; the two approaches are not logically exclusive but the traditions have tended to be exclusive and this has resulted in some extreme though interesting positions not pertinent in this discussion – see e.g. History of Western Philosophy. In the rationalistic idealism of Descartes and Spinoza, while certain knowledge is possible its source is not experience but rationalism that is exemplified by mathematics i.e. by clear and distinct thinking. Empiricism reaches a peak with John Locke who held that ideas are not at all innate but derived from experience i.e. from sensation and reflection; in Locke’s terminology, the power that objects have to produce definite ideas in us are qualities – primary qualities such as solidity and extension belong to the object and secondary qualities such as colors and tastes are nothing in the objects themselves but the powers to produce various sensations by the primary qualities: thus while the secondary qualities do not exist without a subject they are no less objecti