What Went Wrong?

The universe must be a composition from a Perfect Mind, removed from the poison and pettiness that limits human innovation; a cosmic second encompasses and sustains into infinite futures the quality of life exceeding the collected works of every genius to ever stroke a brush, pluck a string or deliver oratory. The thinking of one human might approach such mastery, but any terrestrial approach is rather like the romantic traveler heading into the horizon, for which there is no destination, only a confounded, admirable, perpetually stubborn traversing of distance and time; indeed, therein resides the uniqueness and Beauty of the humanity we all possess. What went wrong?

What happens when the rest of the world gets a smart phone with internet access?

Imagine this... a global economy that resembles our current one is functioning, faultily in many respects, but the engine is indeed churning away; adding new consumers/investors all the time; the market is indeed sustained by the need to devote most of its energy in attracting consumers to specific products... then, 2 billion new consumers enter the marketplace.

It isn't quite the same as imagining a local or mid sized retail chain getting flooded with 1000% increased foot traffic, because a global economy works with current and potential inventory; just the notion of that many new eyes alone would spawn efforts to increase market presence. Signaling to your product becomes at least more active, and the demand for new products, increases by sheer awareness increases from those newly considered consumers.

The economic arguments are usually shrouded in pessimissim regarding human nature, and a cynicism about how human beings are going to handle, collectively, such a flux in status quo. I submit that this potential scenario does not lose its luster simply because people might screw it up. I will try my best to argue for a scenario that results itself in lieu of current assessments on human nature (whatever the hell they actually are).

Think back to when you first discovered the internet. I was probably 8 years old; I would goto my sister's house and play video games on their PC. Old, original DOS games mostly. Then, suddenly, they would, before letting me sit down to play, connect their computer vizaviz AOL to the internet, and allow me access to a search engine and chat rooms. I was instantly enamored. What happens when you give an 8 year old today, access to a fairly up to date interface through which to access the internet. Ancient Android operating systems, with their youth, are stable and functional enough to sustain repeated use and intrigue the curious.

Again, I think it's convenient and lazy to a certain degree to simply respond with an argument that hinges upon the historical precedent that humans will likely just screw it all up. Either the power elite will snatch and control this opportunity in fear that too many people with access to information is a danger to the state (which is a likely point of concern for those in power, I'm sure), or people just won't be that interested in the technology because they are somehow not smart enough, or enlightened enough, or educated enough. And indeed, a state responding with control manuevers rather than expansion strategies are probably going to do that in order to stop access to unwanted information. All this really can go without saying, in my opinion, for the implications to the contrary (even if not ultimately optimistic) are considerable, even if the outcome turns out to be a negative one on a moral level.

Think of a society of evil rulers controlling the internet; then think of its contrary... an internet-connected global economy with 6 or 7 billion active participants; I'm confident in the intrigue.

Mysterious Epistemology and Metaphysics part 1

It is probably impossible to convince me of anything. The reason is rather simple. I cannot trust the efficacy of any mechanism that requires itself to understand itself. As a result, I cannot trust, truly, anything that the mechanism claims to understand. Yet, this is itself one of many paradoxes one arrives at following this line of logic.

Yet, it may not be a problem at all. In fact, I'm inclined to think that this infinite conundrum could be the very essence of the evolution of any being that uses a mechanism comparable to our own. In light of this, perhaps I should define this mechanism... (indeed, there are already many terms I must attempt to define to try to render anything I've already said, and anything I will henceforth say into any clarity whatsoever). I will try first then to define the said mechanism, commonly referred to as "mind."

The human mind is a mechanism that wields reason as its weapon in the fight between itself and reality. The battle is waged with interpretation (or perception, though these two terms are generally distinct) and is ostensibly the means to reality's end. The "end" of reality is that which one perceives as reality. It isn't hard to see the circularity inherent in this definition; I'm afraid you will have to set aside your qualms with circular thinking in order to attempt a charitable grasp at what I'm trying to articulate. Mind is thus that which contains reason. Any notion of "mind" beyond that is merely suggesting something different than I am in this instance. Of course, we are beholden to the assumptions we make, and such assumptions are merely the interpretations of our mind-using-reason.

Reality is thus the result of the battle between mind and reality. I like the describing it as a battle for, if anything, an entertaining reason; societies are doomed if they do not determine what is considered reality for most in the society, for they would then be forced to concede to any or all interpretations, and would therefore have no basis upon which to establish codes of conduct and rules of law (relativism). There are indeed problems with this formulation, but we must try to do away with certain things in principle, and allow how things operate in practice to be sufficient frameworks within which to operate.(Not all reality is created equal of course. If this is your argument against what I've said so far, I must implore you to allow the argument to unfold). Mind makes reality, reality is codified, societies operate. Take for instance Kant's categorical imperative, which states that one cannot make universal a law that contradicts what the society determines to be "obligation." Do not steal if you cannot say faithfully that stealing should be a universally allowable behavior. Society would at least cease to exist in whatever current iteration it exists in at the time. That interpretation of reality is standard because any other interpretation of that phenomenon jeopardizes social order. What constitutes effective social order, and whether or not Kant's ethical principles are valid is not the point, but points to the notion that it is at least sufficient that people agree, by and large, to a somewhat standard view of reality to maintain social order. As far as Kant is concerned, and the notion of social order, I will tackle these problems later on.

Let us remind ourselves of what has been said so far. Reason cannot be trusted, yet, reason is required for understanding, therefore, we gaze deeply into the manifold of paradoxes. The mind uses reason to attempt to avoid such paradoxes by engaging reality with its interpretation of that reality. The paradoxical nature of such a mechanism emerges because in effect, mind cannot use reason to understand reason, and thus any interpretation of reality is problematic. It is easy, and convenient to brush aside this problem with many a philosophical trick, yet I remain unconvinced. Perhaps I am not intelligent enough to confidently implement any of the major philosophical strategies and derive a compelling solution. Yet, perhaps there is no mind intelligent enough at all to do so.

Above, it is claimed that the paradoxical nature of reason could be the primary engine of the evolution of whatever being that engages with reality as stated previously. To unpack this notion, it is helpful to attempt a definition of "evolution," given its hefty connotative baggage. Firstly, we must assume (every notion is an assumed notion) that beings with comparable mechanisms such as ours at least desire, on some level (primitive or otherwise) their own progress. Progress can be construed as that phenomenon which a reasonably ordered society strives toward in its overall state of affairs. Astute readers might have noticed that as a result of this particular assumption, evolution and progress are related but distinct dynamic phenomena. They differ in one important way; progress is relative to a society's interpretation of its reality; evolution is all-encompassing progress, and may or may not include, or even "agree" with the society's interpretation of its own progress (here we see another iteration of the paradox of reason). With that distinction in mind, we might also want to assume that there is indeed an evolutionary trajectory. Again, it is important to remember that whatever understanding reason comes up with to interpret such an evolutionary trajectory must be held under close scrutiny and suspicion. The conclusion to this line of thinking, while it is what I am striving to achieve currently, still does not convince me ultimately that such truths can be known. Nonetheless, it is clear at least that there is progress in the universe. If that is the case, then perhaps there is indeed an inherent teleological "forwardness" carrying itself out.

I will have to now concede absolutely to the notion that the nature of the universe is unknowable to reason. In light of the above, hopefully the manner in which this concession is made is coherent. Notice, I have until now avoided making any theological claims. I will try to tackle some theological issues moving forward. First, whether or not God is an adequate solution to the epistemological problem of interpreting reality depends on whether or not God exists. This is itself an epistemological problem of interpreting reality, and thus cannot be adequately engaged using reason. Some might then employ the notion of faith in response to this problem, and while the jury is most certainly out on this question, I have no qualms with concluding that it is paradoxical by virtue of its notional existence, in the same way that any concept is reducible to paradox. For example, to say that something exists is to suggest something true about reality. If truth about reality is subject to the interpretation of reason as stated above, then such truth is at best a place holder for potential truth. If such place holders can be allowed to exist, then all interpretations of reality have equal access to placing whatever notion in as a place holder for whatever cannot be explained or understood through reason. This is paradoxical, because the suggestion that all interpretations of reality are valid defies reason, and reason is the cause of any interpretation of reality.

A counter to this line of thinking might attempt to place any of the previous assumptions made above about the nature of reason in the same category as things that exist through faith--in the "place holder" position as something that only might exist, and because one cannot access it through reason, then it must exist in another realm of existence (or some such formulation). But to say that something both is, and is not, is incoherent to reason. Only when we add qualifications to that undefined something are we able to force it out of nonexistence. Thus, we cannot say something exists through "faith" with any more confidence than anything else that might exist through faith or reason. If something "is" because of "faith," then it no longer occupies a space out of reach of reason's interpretive grasp. And yet, this very move is subject to fall into the same trap, for it requires reason, and reason cannot be trusted with matters of understanding reality. Another way to look at it, is to examine more closely the notion of faith. One might have faith in something, which at first glance doesn't seem like quite the same thing as faith about unknowable existence. Faith in something brings that something into existence as a desired interpretation of reality. But, the fact that if I have faith that I am healthy enough to not get cancer, does not render out of existence the possibility that I might get cancer. If that is the case, then an odd thing happens. Faith about the existence of God is just as ineffective; just because it is bringing something from beyond the realm of interpretative existence, does not give it adequate space to exist outside of becoming a mere "place holder" for something that cannot be known. It seems then, that faith is actually a form of reason, for it requires both realities to be true and false in the same instance, and is thus paradoxical.

To be continued.
---

Follow me to keep up with this series of writings on epistemology and metaphysics.

@sacrifice_mc
Soundcloud.com/sacrifice

Our Political Turmoil: Ideologically Driven Shutdowns, Furloughs, Concessions to Law... Confusion

Our Political Turmoil: Ideologically Driven Shutdowns, Furloughs, Concessions to Law... Confusion

To say the least, it has been an interesting latter half of 2013. Blaring from our TV screens, radios and media devices are issues ranging from the domestic consequences of foreign policy spending, Syria and the U.S. Middle Eastern footprint, Healthcare, Gun Control and Education to name a few. And now, a not-so-unprecedented, yet strangely anomalous government shutdown, causing millions of people to either be subject to furlough or to be forced to work without pay; and perhaps most importantly, a gridlocked legislative system caused by political hardliners driven solely by ideological agendas. It is difficult, if not nearly impossible to parse out this situation in objective terms, because most opinions (private and public) are influenced entirely by factional opinion creating and propagating machines: political parties and their proponents in the mainstream media establishment driven by fervent political activism. It is increasingly difficult to sort out why politicians take certain positions, because in large part, they are in a perpetual political war, where ideological trade offs become valuable political currency, or territory, to use the war metaphor.

These issues raise many important, systemic problems. These problems procedurally condition our political processes, orient and reorient them closer toward extremism, and determine public opinion. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in a political economy where the default currency is public opinion. This indeed, is a problem that most opponents of democracy writ large have warned about throughout intellectual history.

How then should a Federal Constitutional Republic governmental structure work? What are the conditions under which a smooth policy making process ought to unfold? How much influence should a capitalist economic system have on policy making? Is it ever a good political strategy to threaten political/economic stability to push an ideological agenda?

It comes down to a very simple, ethical, and ultimately philosophical dilemma. How far should a policy maker go, politically, if he or she truly believes that a law, or political position could destroy economic and political stability? Should he push his agenda to a point where such instability is immediately foreseeable, so as to force an opposing point of view to fold under the pressure of disaster? If that is a viable strategy, are we engaged in a healthy political process? It's a matter of perspective: what is the end-game scenario for any political ideology?

It's not merely a "big government" vs "small government" paradigm anymore. With respect to our two main political parties, the threshold encapsulating that line is becoming increasingly crowded. In many respects, both parties lean toward the center on this issue; its not even clear that this is still the crux of the debate. It's perceived as a trivial point, unfortunately, but the purpose of a government depends upon the ideological outlook of each bureaucrat independent of any partisan agenda. We should be debating along these lines every single day in D.C. Out of this fundamental debate, key issues will be forced onto the floor. No one should simply assume that because representative x is a republican, or a democrat that he automatically treads the basic republican political line. Parties exist to facilitate political support mechanisms to hoist individuals into positions of power, where the perception is that they will have some sort of procedural influence over the ultimate partisan strategy. In reality, it is never made clear what a politician believes regarding this fundamental question. 

Religion and the Sociological Paradox

It is impossible to declare anything definitive about "God," except that it either exists, or does not exist. These two propositions are absolute realities that are, paradoxically, contrivances of the human mind as we understand it. There are many philosophical problems, and linguistic difficulties when attempting to articulate anything regarding ultimate reality and "creation," which renders discussions between believers and non-believers both necessary and meaningless. Faith cancels out reason, and reason cancels out faith. There are no "voids." Yet, semantic renderings of absolute substances like "God" create voids.

This is the reason religions motivate people to do terrible things to each other, because of the logical and spiritual impasse naturally reasoning minds reach when trying to justify their belief systems to people who have different belief systems.

The only stance I can possibly take is a spiritually charged, rational skepticism; or if you will, a Socratic, principled discourse of knowing ignorance. The fact that religions inspire people to commit atrocities is a psycho-sociological and anthropological problem of finite beings in constant battle with their own existential angst in the face of death. The logic is clear; death is the antithesis to life; life is the synthesis with which we derive purpose and meaning, thus, when there is a clash between ideologies that quite literally provide the enabling conditions for actualized meaning and purpose, it is no surprise that so much blood is shed as a result.

As an aside, this argument can be applied aptly to many debates where a "cause" for such things as violence, war, etc. are concerned. People are desperate when the meaning of their existence, or the purpose of their being on the planet in the first place is questioned or threatened. Sociological phenomena such as economic struggles, for instance, or socioeconomic statuses that render upward mobility near impossible, or living conditions that include substantial lack of essential needs; it is not surprising that the most violent places on the planet are those places that turn out to be breeding grounds for desperate extremism. Purpose driven by desperation is possibly even what spawned the need for religions in the first instance.

the box

The Box.

Within which all things exist. To emphasize the scope of the idea, one could even place conceptions of the universe, infinity, absolutes, God (perhaps) inside The Box.

The pervasive medium through which thought is allowed to explore the totality that exists within it.

-----

Is the universe a dualistic manifold? If entropy is the necessary counteracting function to that of evolution's necessary promulgation of life, does entropy exist outside of evolution, or does it cohabit with evolution as a dependency?

It seems that repulsion is needed to hold the fabric of existence together, acting as an incentive creating, motivating force; that which evolution strives against.

If so, as evolution evolves toward greater complexity, as embodied in what seems to be it's apex evolutionary achievement (technology, or humanity... Obviously these things are interdependent as of now), in virtue of evolution's absolute stake in the proliferation of life, is it possible that entropy could be suspended, then utilized, harnessed for its own gain? Couldn't it be argued that entropy is a technology of evolution, a functioning system on the globe of the universe, like a river, with which its societies tap into discoverable irrigation and power generating technical systems? What agency the universe must possess, to extend it's immanence through to its constituent phenomena. Some will use this line of reasoning to posit God. In this discussion I am forced to concede to a Conception of God; to find it embodied in a single being however is manifestly underwhelming as a belief system.

What are we faced with in this paradigm that motivates us, specifically? It is difficult to avoid the moral domain, but we must maintain the metaphysical stance for as long as we can. The moral domain is merely another box.

Yet, there is this complexity, that in one sense feels intricate and designed, but in another, chaotic and random. Human reason seems to operate so as to bring the design, and perhaps the designer to the forefront of consciousness. What is consciousness but a free filter, with space and time as its axes, shaping perceived reality into very distinct fabrications that allow for meaning and propositions. As it slides its perceptual modalities from one axis to another, the design is altered, and through different patterns arises nuanced understanding of the universe. Through these intellectual localities we bring into existence ideas that span the disciplinary spectrum. The Free Filter moves and the output is thus sociological, or physical, or economic.... But what is it that describes the operating systems of that spectrum? Metaphysics becomes that domain of forcing the general into the domain of the specific. These manifold intuitions become processing tools with which consciousness shapes the chaos into designs. Meaning is made by extrapolation from the general to the specific and vice versa.

Nonetheless, we must contend with the entropic: in this discussion I will expand the meaning of entropy to mean more than its common physical definition, and for good reason. First, physics, by its own definitional nature is presupposed as a fundamental absolute domain. It provides for, in one sense, the grounds upon which the rest of the universe exists and operates. One could say physics is the set of algorithms that informs the operating system's behavior. The platform. Entropy thus, insofar as it counteracts what might as well proceed ad infinitum, the force of life, as it were, is an expanse of negative forces against the pervasive thriving for progress. For example, one could perceive Entropy expanded to include the limitations of reason, the unanswerable questions of reality, the paradoxes of rationality, the morally depraved, sociopathic, randomness of destruction, mortality itself.

---

If technology is driven, as it were, by the engine of evolution, that is, evolution could be cited as the entity that co-opted humanity, using its ability to reason, to implement the procedures which gave rise to technological development*, mustn't we consider the unintended consequences, as if evolution is a decider of things, of such a developmental paradigm; what of the impact of technology on humanity itself... There are abundant examples of the benefits of this growth, and there are many detriments... But what of the more insidious effects; what of those resulting phenomena that portray themselves to perception and society as positive, and in virtue of that illusion, humanity is driven toward more and more self deception, facilitating an ever expanding positive-seeming negative feedback loop;

and to feed into the previous discussion of entropy, perhaps it is merely a necessary application of reason (reason as evolution's tool, perhaps even primary tool to create "extentionary" technology) to create illusions and negative feedback loops, so as to ensure the thriving of the machine. After all, systems detest most those free radical elements perpetually intent on subverting the system. It would be interesting to posit the idea that humanity acts at the whim of evolution, that freedom of the will is merely a necessary function of consciousness, and conscious beings similar to our iteration act in ways that overall generate for evolution technologies to expand its reach. One could even venture into the intellectual frontier, and suggest that perhaps those malicious elements of society are necessary, perhaps to create a mirroring through which consciousness collectives can self correct.

The brain is an interesting machine; it operates in seemingly plausible schema in order to ensure that it's own limitations are not the focus of consciousness. If the brain had perception visual representations of all of gaps in perception, we'd see more incomprehensible images than coherent ones. But the brain is constituted in such a way as to fill in these gaps using patterned assumptions, givens, tautologies. Interesting that evolution would develop a fault eliminating technology to allow it's agents to proceed unthwarted toward it's technological destiny.

It is increasingly difficult to get beneath the driving forces of technology because those forces ride on the backs of hidden agendas and motivations.

But back to the main point; first, evolution seems to have a purposive drive, insofar as life is its goal... to establish stability enabling conditions for the propagation of life, so to continue perpetuating it's goal. Again, we have to make many very substantial assumptions regarding humanity's role; first, it is a result of evolution, because humanity is composed of living creatures, and of course humans have evolved to adapt to their environs using the intellect combined with brute force and the utilization of tools. It has to be at least tacitly assumed, to some degree, until further verification is realized, that evolution is making adaptive technologies of its own, and the resulting phenomena of the intellect are necessary extensions of that evolutionary creativity.

--

What of the sociopolitical/economic realm? First, it is naive to attempt a real disentangling of these three tripartite mechanisms, as it were... Culture can be removed to some extent as a generally held constant aspect which changes as kind of an outlier. Perhaps. But we mustn't err in thinking of these domains as independent from one another. The social paradigm is generated by, and at the same generates the political environment: this dynamic in turn generates an emergent economic paradigm. None of these elements are static. The multi-fold aspects of each adjusts to the varied aspects of each and thus the system operates as a kind of collective machine. The complexity becomes much more intense when one zooms into each domain to examine the phenomena that occurs on the level of the agent. There is a top down bottom up interchange that does not trade influential moves, but constantly influences the agents within the system while being influenced by those same agents. Hence the necessary interdependence between what a community buys, for example, and the agenda of the local political structure to both capitalize and respond to the activities of the community.

To assume that markets operate by some absolute order, as an entity in and of itself is to deny the necessary effects of socio-politics on the psychology of communities. Some effects may be difficult to measure in direct quantitative-qualitative domains of analysis, but it is naive to disassociate the effects of policy on consumer trends. It seems counter-intuitive to redirect the focus and try to understand markets as a strictly agent-market relationship. Society has staple productive attractors, food and entertainment, but even those are intertwined with the power mechanisms of policy, food and drug dogmas, movies and music derived from pro and anti nationalistic concerns. Thinkers might be a bit too narrowly oriented when they suggest of the paradigm that it is merely markets, and the reactionary pursuit of orienting policy around trends. Again, policy and politics are driven by agents with as much stake in the social order. Legislation itself cannot be like what markets are claimed to be, removed from and objectively gazed to engage society. They are driven by subjects with agendas; of course to assume this is to assume something fundamental about human nature, that minds cannot be absolutely objective, unless perhaps they can escape bias and engage in truly scientific rationalism. It's a tall order to be truly a scientist about society and the people in it and the people that govern it.

So we return to the grand idea, The Box within which we all exist and all things exist. It is moved and adjusted by the gaze alone, the gaze of the intellect, and refocuses on different landmarks of its infinite-like topography. Each landmark brings to the gaze a specificity that cannot be observed when looking at The Box as a whole. Indeed, we see what we want to see and make associations accordingly. We can control our analyses and create ever more refined boxes, and as a result our gaze discovers connections within that extrapolate naturally to connections outside of the box currently under examination. The Box is super-dimensional; within it we can posit infinite dimensions... But infinity itself can paradoxically fit within its own confined box through which the gaze can focus. It folds, it expands, it rotates. It is in gravity and in time, but it is also in the mind, and in concepts gravity and time can mutate, trans-morph.... We cannot allow ourselves as open minds to be captured by a specific position in The Box, a specific sub-box... We must entreaty our intellects to explore the confines of each box under the strict assumption that it connects, in virtue of it being in The Box, to anything else. Every sub-box is linked necessarily to any other. We entertain paradox and perfection, discord and harmony. We entangle and disentangle.

This is The Box.

---------------




 

"Wasteland"

They used to say people were honest with each other. I lived amongst them a skeptic. These days though, I've learned that trust is not merely a construct of the human relationship, but in large part it is an illusory aspect of human perception.

"What good is truth?

"George; my words are just words."

"But truth is a word."

"True."

That was five months ago; preceding the question of the value of truth, he asked if what we did here was worth doing. I thought I spoke to George like I spoke to all my students. But he was broken. I spent the entire semester trying to make it clear, and I thought abundantly so, that purpose is the only truth that exists. That language is inferior in its attempt to define purpose; that action as intention orients perception; that consciousness is arrived at vicariously through that which exists in the realm of the Other.

George's perspective was different though. Just months before he came to our class on Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" with a suitcase, wearing tattered clothing, as if he'd just escaped the grip of demonic charge. I was preparing my lecture notes as he approached my lectern. It was odd; the room seemed desolate of sound. The only thing I noticed before he confronted me was that silence; indeed... accompanied by the stench of terror and tragedy. "Professor, my family is dead."

The page of Nietzsche I was on seemed to consolidate it's ink into an odd abyss. I could feel my gaze strengthen on the page. Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher, but a philologist; he was a geneticist of ideas. I couldn't see concepts in his pages then. I only saw... rather, I only felt a desolation that I still find difficult to realize in memory.

I raised my eyes to George. It was strange, the strength with which he told me that he lost his family. His family... gone. "George, what happened?"

"There was a fire."

"A fire..."

"Yes."

"Are you alright?"

This exchange haunts me to this day. I still teach that class on Nietzsche's book: "How to Philosophize with a Hammer." Nietzsche would have appreciated the absurdity in the question I posed to George. Are you alright? I fear that if I try to put into language the appropriateness of that question, the absurdity will dissipate. Camus reveled in the absurd; an absurdist's embrace of the void. And when one asks a... child... if he is alright, what does one expect to receive back in that exchange?

Irony: seeing a void, a creator of desolation come alive. George found truth; the rest of us only beckon toward it like vagrants. Truth wasn't lost to George. Just his family.