• NewAge MilleniumShift April 16 - 03:52 pm
• Is it possible to know that one knows the truth-Mitch and Walrus March 26 - 08:41 am
• Being and Nothingness (with a new twist) June 3 - 10:09 pm

Can we have a philosophy that can contain contradiction and non-contradiction at the same time, as an ontological reality of Being? I think 'yes', but other than the 'fuzzy logic' of probability, classical philosophy does not. Yet, such an ontological reality is our human reality. Your thoughts?

 By Ivan A. on Monday, February 4, 2002 - 05:24 pm:

Dear Dave, and All,

Very interesting posts regarding contradiction vis a vis non-contradiction and the future of philosophy. I would like to add my thoughts to this, because I think that we are at important crossroads in philosophy, one where we may shortly witness a new evolution. However, we are also at danger of falling into a 'subjectivity vs. objectivity' loop, which may get us stuck around the same arguments witnessed on this board before, a kind of 'us vs. them' conundrum, which does not serve the purpose of a 'future philosophy'.

I think one reason why the arguments had gotten so heated on some posts, besides the usual ego stuff, is because if we are about to evolve into a future philosophy, one that encompasses existence and being as opposed to merely debating the virtues of logic, then the cauldron of contention will doubtless need to boil over. Argumentation, dialectic or otherwise, is a good temper for those ideas that can survive and move forward and, if these new ideas are not to face an ignoble extinction (like the arguments posited earlier on #16, now 'extinct'), they have to survive the rigors of self and cross examination. To not do this may otherwise condemn the new idea to a kind of philosophical dead end, so it is important to have it survive debate if it is to continue the philosophical 'species'. And when such ideas do thus survive, then a new philosophical direction can be set in motion.

So evolution of philosophy will need to take us into a new sphere of critical thinking, and one which may allow for 'contradiction' to exist, even within PNC, which seems impossible to classical theory. However, we should not ignore that the universal reality, within which we exist, and which is integrated and interconnected within itself, is itself void of contradiction, except perhaps as it applies to us humans. 'It' after all created us with minds which can created contradictions, so by extension the universe may be capable of contradiction as well. Or, as in the earlier debate about a Super-set that can incorporate all sets including itself, which seems to be a contraction, though it may not be if the Super-set is the final 'mind' that can think this; from that 'mind's' point of view the contradiction thus disappears. If so, then 'contradictions' are creations of our making only, and the only reason we accept them is because we are unable to resolve them and, like a universal paradox that has no solution, we are then left with having to accept what appears to be nonsense. In essence, the greatest contradiction is that an inert material universe can 'create', or at least be responsible for, the evolution of a conscious mind... how can that be? Surely, there is something missing in our thinking that does not explain, or simply fails to understand. Yet, we accept our existence.

Thus, if we can surpass the impasse, and rise above the level of 3b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another, then we can jump over this obstacle to come to a clearer understanding of the myriad interrelations that compose the human experience. And that would launch us into thinking of a universe as it thinks of itself, which I think may be the most phenomenal evolution yet. Or as was said by Henry Cornelious Agrippa (Councelor to Charles V, Emperor of Germany, c. 1530):

"Man's mind, when it is most intent upon any work, through its passion, and effects, is joyned with the mind of the stars, and intelligences, and being so joyned is the cause that some wonderful virtue be infused into our works and thing."

To do this, with passion, to think like universal existence 'thinks', may yet be the greatest journey to the stars our minds can make. And from that journey, a wonderful virtue into our future philosophy may yet be infused.

All the best, always a joy,

Ivan
---------------------------------------------------
(Above is in response to entry below)
The Examined Life Discussion Forums: Philosophy Discussion: The acceptance of Contradiction in any future Philosophy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  By davet84 on Saturday, February 2, 2002 - 11:56 am:
All,

Let's begin with a definition from Websters.

Main Entry: con·tra·dic·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.

The whole thread in response to Antony Flew's item on the 'role of non-contradiction' in Philosophy might be seen as an example of definition 3b. Indeed life for all humans on this planet can be, in my humble view, nothing but an example of 3b. Admitting 3b, could be nothing other than the essential tenet of Direct Realism.

I can't speak for other nay-sayers on that thread. For me, the fact that formal logicians place so much emphasis on non-contradiction, and overlook the very real existence of contradiction in the human world is the main source of my whole complaint against formal logic and any kind of academic logic (except possibly phenomenological logic). Indeed for human society to expend so much resource on the education of people so that they simply emerge to 'bite the hand that feeds them' is possibly one of the most sorrowful contradictions of all. By 'bite the hand that feeds them' I mean use any kind of derogatory expression to describe people who believe in the principle that 'education is a good thing and should be funded by government'.

To admit to the contradictions associated with the events of September 11 is to admit to a possibility that positive change can come about. The Chinese probably express it best with their contradictory symbol for crisis, which means at the same time and in the same respect both crisis and opportunity.

We all know, that to engage a person of Islam in logical discussions about their belief in God would be counter-productive, would not bring about positive change, and therefore excludes the law of non-contradiction from any role in the 'existential' mess that the whole world is experiencing.

In terms that formal logicians would not understand, the whole existential mess amounts to the excluded middle where negotiation not argument takes place.

Rather than endless threads devoted to nothing but the cause for the elevation of 'intellectual eroticism' above ordinary concern for the very real contradictions of the world, what about employing intellect to describe what the new Philosophy might look like? To me it would have to be a Philosophy where objective realists, objective idealists, subjective realists, subjective idealists, empirical realists, transcendental idealists, sceptics, pragmatists, feminists, humanists, post-modernists, leftists, conservatives, cubists, surrealists, and ordinary lay-persons could brainstorm possibilities.

The Philosophy, contrary to Formal logic would have to begin by firstly admitting to contradictions (of the type defined by 3b), a law of contradiction if you like, and allows for the prospect that people could live together by developing an understanding of the nature of those very contradictions. It's like Einstein's observation that human's simply have to admit the fact that we live in a technological world.

Perhaps if environmentalists could admit to technology, they could move ahead. Maybe they could see some of the benefits of technology. If formal logicians could admit to contradictions, they too could contribute, and possibly serve as mediators to the discussions between environmentalists and business leaders.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful gesture, if a group of Formal Logicians held a press conference and stated that they intend to insert, as a core foundation to their beliefs, the existence of contradiction in the world?

Anyone want to say that these propositions are tom foolery?

Dave.

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

ON BEING

"As individuals each of us participates with the whole throughout our daily being."

Reply 30:
What is beyond language indeed? Since we have demonstrated the unity of the Thought and the Word, and we agree that the basis of (knowledge/language) is beyond the individual mind as we perceive it, we are left with the question of "who we are" being defined in terms of "we" and not "us ourselves". The implication is that of a necessary social definition of our being. However, the deep underlying connection that exists between our individual bodies and everything else implies "self", that is, an individual being whose behaviors are environmentally determined. We have no way, at present to prove pre linguistic consciousness, but it seems reasonable to posit language as a logical limit. From these basis' one may conclude consciousness itself as a "collective" function, whose expression is found through our individual bodies. Every word that we speak is a thing which exists through us ourselves and not of us ourselves. In a sense, each of us is like an actor, playing a part as Shakespeare so eloquently noted. To carry the metaphor further, each of us, through the memory of our own personal experience, gives life to the part, and through this "giving" in a small way helps to write the script. This is who we are, both player and audience, so take a bow and applaud "yourself".
Metaphor is a function of (knowledge/language). More than a type of knowledge, it is a way of knowing, or transposing from one context domain to another. Metaphor is bounded only by its use.
It is agreed that "present" is a relative term. Therefore the basis of (knowledge/language) is a personal matter.
I agree that the (creation/discovery) of knowledge involves our bodies, but the "we" to which you refer is certainly not confined to these bodies. The continuum of consciousness that manifests throughout the world is the creator, and the discoverer of newness. As individuals each of us participates with the whole throughout our daily being. Through multiple channels, and in an acausal way, our perceptions and actions exist as superpositions of the whole through the node. As discussed earlier a node is defined as an area of state space where one or more dimensions has collapsed within the interference of out of phase attractors thereby allowing energy to "leak" along the fractal enthalpic path. From the model, we see that "who we are" is dynamic and causally irreducible, further localization of individual consciousness within being, is nothing more than an illusion. One conclusion being that so long as we think, we are never alone.
In Response 18 you stated "In the superposition part of the model, it is not stated whether the nodes are independent of each other, or are inherently the same, thereby from a single object." We are now prepared to address this specific issue. In terms of our recent discussion a node can be termed as a metaphor of itself, or to put it another way, a non-object through which energy is encoded and transmitted throughout a system. Within the category "exists", node remains unbounded by the class "object" since node can only be logically examined through negation. Like metaphor, node represents the collapse of (self/not self) within a set of domains so as to decrease potential energy within a system.

Some observations:
Intrinsic separation as a necessary pre-condition to knowledge implies a causally determined link between "Us", and the rest of the universe. Further the implied duality would extend to us ourselves through "Conclusion (f)". Once again we are faced with a logical inconsistency. It would seem that the binary nature of logical arguments is ill-equipped to resolve questions involving origination.
In regards to understanding. Why do you modify the word understanding with "really"?
If experience is distinct from knowledge, then I am unclear as to how you define experience.
When you state that "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself," who is speaking?

Ken Bell March 27 2000

(taken from the Inexpressible.com "Inquiries" as posted)
http://www.inexpressible.com/d9(29-31.html

*****************************************************************
After rereading Ken Bell's entries regarding the proposition "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time," it occurred to me that the following formal logic expression may capture what Ken is saying:

If x = myself
b = being
c = consciousness

then the expression:

[E(x) (b(x) = c(x))] = 1

This could be written out in ordinary language as:

"I (myself) am who I am (being) while I know who I am (conscious), in whole to myself (certainty = 1), at the same time."

Or, if expressed in terms of "we", then substitute "I/myself" with "we".

However, if said by someone other than oneself, the formal equation changes to:

[E(x) (b(x) = c(x))] = 0

...which means that the result is total uncertainty = 0.

This is so because for another person, this "self knowledge" is impossible to know directly.

However, given the nature of human beings that we have the ability of language and of communicating our "being" into the consciousness of another, then fuzzy logic takes over, and the result of the formal logic above will equal some probabilistic value between 0 and 1; the closer they are in agreement, the closer they get to 'one', whereas if there total disagreement, or miscommunications, the closer they get to 'zero'. (I.e., killing another human being has a zero value, whereas loving another has a closer to one value.)

Therefore, the only way for the proposition to be true would be from a self-referential perspective, where it equals one, and it is fuzzy at best from any one else's perspective, or of zero value.

--Ivan Alexander

RE "Prometheus Bound: The Philosophical Roots of Un-Philosophical Logic" by Christopher R. Altieri.

(Or, philosophy 'talking' about Being) --ed.

To read full text, go to:
http://examinedlifejournal.com/archives/vol3ed9/prometheus.shtml

BEING AS AN EXTENSION OF A SECULAR GOD

In his excellent paper, "Why is There Anything at All?", A.B. Kelly, PhD., writes:

"In his "History of Religion East and West" (1968) Ling argues that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic ideas of God have all been adversely affected by a concept of God that is based on the actions of an arbitrary oriental potentate. He traces the development and growth of this concept of God within Israel, and argues that this was not the original Hebrew concept of God. (1968, 71-2) He also maintains that Jesus sought to restore the original compassionate concept of divinity and to overturn "the Near Eastern potentate conception of the divine being" (1968,159) Ling claims that there are signs that "Christian theology is at last beginning to divest itself of this ancient pagan encumbrance" in favour of "the coming into being of a humanity whose nature has been briefly glimpsed in Christ" (1968, 426-9)."
http://examinedlifejournal.com/archives/vol3ed9/anything.shtml

This is an issue that has yet to find full expression in modern philosophical thinking, that we are not beings subject to an interfering 'Oriental potentate', who will interfere at times in extraordinary ways in our human affairs. In fact, other than through miracles, some of which remain unexplained and thus a mystery, there is no daily evidence of God interfering with our affairs. I would think quite the opposite is true, that we truly are left alone even during times of extreme trial, as witnessed during periods of numbing barbarity in our human history. There is room to believe that God does answer prayers, however, but this becomes a personal matter between the supplicant and God, and not generalized as a universal event. Then again, the Jesus experience, both as a personal salvation and universal humanity, of good over evil, is another development within human consciousness, but it does not negate a God who is aloof from human affairs. Yet, it seems that we still collectively think of God as being involved in our personal lives on an ontological level, that our being is somehow 'monitored' by a greater Deity, as had been believed from ancient times; though there is scarce evidence of this to be so.

But there is a different way of seeing existence and the universal reality within which our being exists, that we are part of an interactive reality, an interrelationship driven universe, that then defines for each and every living thing its existence in relation to its mind, as how that mind survives and thrives, or exists, within its given physical reality. That humans are more conscious of this, than our fellow animals on this planet, places us in some higher position to interact with our reality, as witnessed by the way we have learned to use knowledge and science to serve our needs; but it does not give us a more direct access to God's reality, as far as we can tell. Of course, it is possible that we are being 'talked to' by God all the time, but that we are not yet able to understand, or not yet evolved enough to be conscious of this. Nevertheless, as Kelly says:

"Ling has distinguished three main types of religious beliefs, the "theology of the omnipotent", typified by Islam; the "anthropology of the awakened" typified by Buddhism; and the "Christology of Jesus, or the new man" typified by Christianity. In the first two types there is little or no sense of historical development. It is only in Christianity that the time-process is "of primary importance". (1968,425) But it is clear that the "theology of the omnipotent" is still alive and well not only in Islam but also in Judaism and Christianity."

So we are still in the world of an 'omnipotent Potentate' as this had been handed down to us by the ancient sages who defined what are today's world religions. This will be so, I suspect, until we can better understand how our 'interactive universe' connects with us. And that time will arrive, I venture, when we can see Being within the context of a new philosophy of reality, as we move from God as Potentate to One who is secular; a God unfettered by the 'omnipotent' demands, now restrictions on our thinking, set for God by the ancient religious thinkers. In effect, we are moving towards a Secular God which, by extension, becomes a new ontological definition of Being.

--Ivan Alexander

THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION PRINCIPLE, AND TOLERANCE.

 By davet84 on Monday, February 4, 2002 - 10:46 pm:
Things are buzzing along here...

From the notion of the (possible) need to accept contradiction, we've moved through religious ideas, logic of existence (still to be enunciated it seems), perpectivism, the left in politics, egalitarianism, through to Ivan's mention of a philsophy that encompasses existence and being.

I had a read of Chris Altieri's translation of 'Reflections on the Principle of Non-Contradiction'. The controversy seems to arise from where it fits into discussions.

The paper seemed to reveal that there are many applications and understandings applied to non-contradiction. The Principle of Non-contradiction in the Aristotelian sense is nicely summed up by the fact that anyone who would want to argue against it must use it to argue their case. While this sounds a little like philosophical hocus pocus, the crux is that the mere utterance of anything, the expression of a thought in language cannot in itself be contradicted - i.e. it exists.

So, we so-called nay-sayers have been operating with it the whole time. But nobody bothered to tell us that there is a subtle difference between the Principle of Non-Contradiction, and the Principle of Identity in Formal Logic.

It tends to align to the Aristotelian category of 'substance' and answers the question 'what is it?' So when Claude asks Anon 'what is it'? and he answers 'logical existence', we have to acknowledge that there is a thought in Anon's mind which he identifies as 'logical existence', and that in itself must be admitted (to discussion, and not necessarily argument)according to the Principle of Non-contradiction.

There is mention of the 'contradictions' between Parmenides philosophy which left him no other choice but to deny movement, and Herakleitos philosophy that all being is becoming and that no truth can be ascertained.

Aristotle saw this conflict and introduced the categories (beginning with substance - what formal logic would call identity) to show that all thoughts express some aspect of a category of thought. From my old 'Introduction to Philosophy' by Konstantin Kolenda, he lists the Aristotelian categories as (in relation to the example of an oak tree):

* What is it? - Substance
* How tall is it? - Quantity
* How does it look? - Quality
* What is its bearing on others? - Relation
* Where is it? - Place
* When does (did it)exist? - Time
* How is it growing(straight,crooked)? - Posture
* What state is it in? - State
* What is it doing? - Action
* What is acting on it? - Being acted on, Passivity


To me, the last category could include the subjective intentionality (hopes, fears, desires etc) of the speaker (as per Searle).

There may be contradictions in categories beyond substance, but substance (i.e. the existence of the idea/thought/that which is signified) cannot be contradicted. So the 'logic of existence' becomes the Principle of non-contradiction itself. However, the predicates of that which exists are broad indeed and apply to many categories (how the mind is perceiving it). Tends to support Whitman once again with the 'I am multitudes' statement.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (or the Law of Non-Contradiction) as we have been discussing it relates to the Law of Non-Contradiction within Formal Logic (or as Mitch refers to it, the principle of identity). This then deals with the truth or falsity associated with a proposition to do with determinate things of substance, and the search for epistemic truth. It also relates to a limited view of categories (quantity, one place, one time), in that it doesn't deal with relation, posture, state, action, passivity, nor intentionality.

So the Principle of Non-Contradiction (seemingly paradoxically) admits contradiction as a statement about the entire range of categories. It may be that when a Formal Logician (on substance) argues with a theist (on relation, action, passivity) there is a categorical impasse. This is where human communicative activity resides, in that we have to deal with the contradictions, but may or may not employ formal logic (and thus truth or falsehood) in dealing with the contradictions. We may just be dealing with views on relations, which are pretty subjective I guess, and culturally bound as well, and so subject to sensitivity and tolerance.

It's curious to me how Formal Logic seems to deal with things like Parmenides did (not admitting motion), while say Postmodernism might be said to represent the Herakleitian views of today. I'm not sure who would be Aristotle though (maybe Chalmers, since he identified the hard and easy problems like Aristotle did)...or who would be a modern equivalent of Plato, that's a tall ask.

But there's one difference today (the 21st century)...we've discovered something about the limits of our thought, and a bit more about our place in the Universe, be it ever so humble.


Hey, Graham, Nietzsche may have been right...it's the eternal return come back to bite us!!

As far as 'my reading of Nietzsche', it's an assisted reading, benefitting from Professor Schacht, you, Deleuze etc, and viewing it as influenced by Schopenhauer. I wouldn't like to take any political positions on it at this stage. I look on it more as a guide to a personal view development, a conflict/contradiction resolution guide, or maybe just a citizen's education.

I like to follow the tenet of Bryan Magee where you can agree with certain observations of a Philosopher, without accepting all his premisses, nor indeed his conclusions. So while the quote from Genealogy of Morals resonates for me, his denouncement of Buddhism, for instance, I don't take on board. I think if he'd looked into it a bit more it might have helped him with his depression.

Dave.

(Xpost from http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html )

IDENTITY as a Function of Context.

Hi Dave, and everyone,

Your seminal question on the future of philosophy, in the context of contradiction as an element of formal logic, has launched a interesting and admittedly lively debate, which in the end seemed to have settled on the epistemology of 'identity'. I suspect the board is aware of how important this term 'identity' is, both in terms of semantics, and as an ontological concept of self examination, and ultimately of 'being'. Something 'is' its identity, which philosophy going back to Aristotle had treaded as a given; whereas 'being' as an epistemic identity, as seen on this board, can be understood in a contextual sense, that a thing's identity cannot be separated from the environment that forms its 'contextual totality' (as said by G-man: 2/11/02). Identity, when not taken as purely a definition of 'self-sameness', then takes on a more cosmic meaning, where 'undivided wholeness in flowing movement' (Graham: 2/11/02), and thus it becomes a function of this wholeness, or a function of its context within that wholeness.

I bring this up because I think it is unbelievably important for the future of philosophy. Identity, seen as more than self sameness, then becomes a root building block of all metaphysical thinking as it applies to Being. Aristotle's A=A then becomes more of A~A, where the two may somehow approximate each other but are never the same, either through time or in some nano-singularity of time. Like in Bohm's river analogy: "On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow." To acknowledge then something as having 'identity' is then to artificially 'freeze it', like the ice patterns that solidify in a frozen river, to either exist a definable thing in reality, or one that we identify 'as being itself' in our minds. This may happen in nature all the time, where from the primordial soup of energy crystallized in time the pieces of the cosmos we can now identify, from dust particles in space to living eco-systems on planets endowed with life, to living beings endowed with minds who can look back upon existence and find meaning there. For example, back when I was a little kid in school and my teacher taught me that if I take one apple and put it next to another apple, I have two apples. The expression of this then became the ground for my stepping into mathematics with 1+1=2, which in itself is a sublimely abstract concept, though we accept it as most natural, almost as a given. The result of this abstraction is that in the end humans developed a whole body of expressions as they relate to logic and algorithms, what is now the mathematics we use directly and indirectly in virtually all parts of our lives. However, the basic foundation, that an apple represents "1" is never questioned, since we accept this by definition. The fact that the apple exists because of its contextual relationships, to the tree on which it grew, to the eco-environment responsible for the tree's existence, for the land and water and light that nourish it, to the planet occupying a life zone within our solar system, to the stars that position our system within the universe; and also connected to the time line that had brought existence from some dim origin of the universe to the living reality within which the apple now exists; to the gene pool (Dave: 2/11/02) that had registered all this information into what the apple is; all these are the contextual wholeness that define for us, or identify, the apple = 1. Whether or not this is a result of a closed Newtonian universe, or one that is forever open and unknown, as implied in QM, does not negate that this apple is a real representation of all the cosmic, magnetic, subatomic, and nano forces that had acted upon that point within the flow of space and time that is now represented by the apple's existence, its being. When seen this way, and I describe this rather poorly, how much richer is the concept of 'identity' than to say merely that A=A. Does this new way of seeing identity as a function of context not represent an incredible evolution within philosophy? I think most assuredly so.

So this definition of identity as a function within its contextual wholeness is a new way of understanding the being of things in reality. and if so, then it represents a whole new direction of the future of philosophy. It does not negate the self-examination inherent in formal logic, nor does it negate the use of philosophical shortcuts, that A=A, when they are necessary for the construction of a useful metaphor, like 1+1=2, so that approximate models of existence can be constructed for our understanding of what is reality. However, it does point to a new direction of philosophical thinking which springs over Aristotelian logic and into the space and time consciousness supported by the new insights gained from quantum mechanics, biology, astro-physics, chaos theory, and what has become for us the empirical examination of an unbelievably large universe, one which miraculously is capable of creating and supporting life consciousness. And if so, then is it not a small jump form 'identity' as it applies to things to "identity" as it applies to the consciousness of "who" we are? I think that there is so much room for exploration in that direction, that who we are in our identity is not so different from what it is we are. And that, my friends, is what takes us into new dimensions where (as WJ and others had reminded us) the intuitive is able to rise to levels that yield new philosophical creativity, which leads to a wide and open ended understanding of our human reality. Or perhaps, in that new rarified region of future philosophy, we will come to realize that our 'Identity' is in fact our 'Being', that we are who we are; and that this Being as understood in our Identity is perhaps, without contradiction, not so far removed from something we as a species had struggled with for eons, but never really got a grasp of: God.

Peace and Joy,

Ivan

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!

Hi Ivan,

I decided to respond to your post here rather than at Examined Life for a couple of reasons.

(a) The Examined Life as we have known it (for both of us now for around about a year), in respect of the internet journal from which you post the cross-postings from time to time, has entailed a bitter-sweet experience. We have had questions on our mind which correspond very closely to the Socratic invitation 'the unexamined life is not worth living'.

Our 'wonderment' has been somehow overridden and gave rise at times to a sense of unworthiness, by the external (to us) examination of contemporary professional philosophers who have been telling us how philosophy should be conducted. In short we have been told that philosophy consists in the identification of poor argumentation, and revolves around questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and logic. We have even been told that we cannot understand these things without doing a semester of logic, or at least reading a copy of Make's 'Introduction to Logic'.

All other branches of what we had come to know as philosophy in our initial investigations, were said to have devolved into specialist areas like 'philosophy of science', 'philosophy of mathematics', 'philosophy of law', philosophy of politics', 'philosophy of medicine', 'psychology', 'anthropology', and the social sciences generally.

These 'branches', are also areas in which the ordinary citizen is excluded through want of qualification. We are required to be content with our 'pop cultures', literature, perhaps poetry, tha arts generally, and sport. It is, seemingly, only the experts in those other areas of interest who can enunciate appropriate views.

These ideas have always been problematic to us, and we have tried to find some way in which ordinary folk may benefit from the wisdom traditions of Western thought and ideas. How come the experts are all subject to funding, which is delivered via political decisions, given by the very politicians which the ordinary person votes into office? Why is is it that the ordinary citizen is considered to be the ultimate decision maker (in concert with others), in our judicial systems, through trials by jury?

(b) I believe that we have found a 'path' through the supposed 'impenetrability' of philosophy. I don't think this is such a 'great thing' in itself, and I know that you would not be one to engage in any self-congratulatory endeavours. For me it's a simple window into dignity of being, which was being denied me.

The ordinary person knows that they can get by in life without engaging formal philosophy anyway. It was only we who tried to ride the roundabout (possibly wasting our time) who were 'dumb enough' to submit to the indignity of it all. We had to take our doubts and be made to see tham as 'nonsensical', 'wrong-headed', 'meaningless'. I can remember swapping notes with you about the masochistic nature of our involvement.

But we eventually found a 'slight' opening. We discovered that it lies at the very core of the anlytical tradition itself, deep inside metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and right down to ontology. We are starting to see that the path confirms what we suspected. It does indeed open up so many possibilities (as you have alluded in your last post), that we can say that our original engagement with professional philosophy was worthwhile (pretty dumb, but worthwhile).

Indeed philosophy, as I think we have shown, is very much alive and well, as 'conversation'. Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics, pop Music, Film, can all be reviewed in the light of human ideas going back several millenia. And the privileges of the Western canon, or the Male canon, or the Objective Reality canon, can be seen as simply ideas which were 'first cabs off the rank' in the 'great conversation' which doesn't priviledge any particular human faculty over another.

The ground rules that you have enunciated (agreement and non-coercion) allow for the feminists, the Kerouacs, the cubists, the surrealists, the Van Gogh's, the indigenous folk, the environmentalists, the anarchists, to express themselves in complete alignment to Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction. Dignity makes ground.

Everyone can be involved. But there is that realisation that none of the canon as so far recorded should be discarded, including the analytical tradition and the development of the tool of logic. If you really want to push the envelope beyond reasonable fact, the logicians will find you out. But there is a path through a middle ground from 'untruth' to 'truth'.

We know that formal logic is an extension to our very own logical faculties. In Australia we have a colloquial expression 'get real', when someone is getting a little too fanciful in pushing their ideas. Most times it works, and brings the speaker 'back to earth'.

Like logic, our other 'ordinary/miraculous' faculties do match up with all the traditional areas of philosophy. Ethics developed from our socialising faculties. Aesthetics from ordinary cognitions of the beautiful and the sublime. Politics and Law developed in similar ways, through ordinary recognition of the need for group decision-making processes, and order and justice in society.

Where 'tools' override the faculties themselves, we are entitled to ask 'why?'. In asking why, we may not get the answers from the professional philosophers because they are, with all due respect, too close to their tools to be able to think in terms of everyday concerns.

One of my postings in the deleted forum on the 'Examined Life' invoked the words of Aristotle. I wrote:

[quote]
If ordinary people could be encouraged to engage philosophy they could discover little treasures like what I found in A. A. Long's 'The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy' (Cambridge Uni Press, Cambridge/N.Y., 1999) (p17):

"The investigation of truth is in one way hard, in another way easy (hmmm, Chalmers didn't say it first). An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by union of all a considerable amount is amassed" (From Aristotle's 'Metaphysics', II.1 993a, 30-4, transl. W. D. Ross, in 'The Complete Works of Aristotle', ed. J Barnes, Oxford, 1984).

The insistence on people understanding formal logic means that they must be gifted in a tiny portion of the neo-cortex known as the 'Wernicke's sensory speech area'. They also must have the general IQ, persistence, and determination to employ it fully (admirable but rare qualities). It's a little bit like insisting that people can only play basketball if they have the hand-eye co-ordination of Michael Jordon. That would be demanding that all basketballers must excel in the use of a small part of the neo-cortex known as the primary motor area.

Logic=Formal Logic=Philosophy is simply not a valid and sound equation and it would not allow philosophy to re-establish its place as an important aspect of human endeavour.
[unquote]

That was written on January 25. Now in the middle of February I feel that the openings, and the wisdom of what Aristotle wrote serves as an invitation to the full exploration of the Examined Life. The examination can be seen as much more of a personal exploration rather than the submission of our ideas to 'examination' by professional others. We know that the professional others are very much subject to the same human flaws as us, including losing sight of the fact of their own attachments, blindsightedness, and emotive judgementality.

I agree that the new Ontology is the a great place with which to begin the 'conversation'. There are so many new additions to human knowledge, in areas like neuroscience, neurobiology etc. I feel that these discoveries need to be fed back into philosophy's body of understanding. And in the feedback process, ordinary people can be informed about the significances of new discoveries. It's a bit like everyone taking part in a brainstorming session to try to assimilate all that humanity has learnt, and transcending it. All that we have learnt (as in the scientific use of the word 'we'), belongs to each and every one of us, not to a small group of appropriately qualified experts.

Are we on a similar wavelength with this?

Regards,

Dave.

Dave,

Is The Examined Life worth living?

I hear you, and agree with you, but how are we to reach out and speak to the masses, the masses that have little time for anything but taking care of the necessities of life itself?

To think requires a considerable amount of available time, but to Examine Life requires even more of it.

I live in a small rural town where life is not hurried, but rather relaxed; however, with the local activities including Friday Night High School games, Sunday Church, Wednesday Night religious activities, Saturday Shopping trips, and Evening Homework four nights a week, when do people have time to study The Examined Life? More pertinent perhaps, where are people supposed to find the information?

I think most people live The Examined Life, in that they examine their lives whenever a change occurs, make the adjustments required, and then continue. To put it bluntly, are we supposed to know what ontology means? I don’t think so, for most everyone I know is aware of his or her being; moreover, most people I know accept their being for what it is, not what someone else makes it out to be. That is my contention with Existentialism.

Formal Philosophy is not for the masses, it never was, it never will be, and if you could ask Aristotle or Plato, Aquinas, or even Kierkegaard, they would tell you the same things. Why? Philosophy is a discipline of isolation, not participation; moreover, the lifestyles of all published philosophers often leaves much to be desired, in that only a meager few of them ever have a family of their own, and lived a life without serious turmoil. Is life supposed to be filled with turmoil? I don’t think so, but that seems to be the norm for a philosopher.

Philosophers are seldom doers during life, it is what they leave behind that becomes their forte, their legacy, and for some, their legend. But, what is it about philosophy that does attract some of us to further study of it? Is it about change? Is it about knowing? I don’t think so; I think most of us do it for our own satisfaction and no other reason. What have I learned by reading more than one hundred philosophy books? I have learned that what drives people to philosophy is a search for information that does not exist, and perhaps is not supposed to exist, or be discovered. To me, it seems the life of a philosopher dwells on his or her mortality, and the attempt to overcome it, which is ludicrous if one stops to think about it.

You figure out the method to attract an audience, and I will provide the theatre.

Claude

Claude,

Good points...as to the masses being merely concerned with the necessities of life. Could be Maslow's hierarchy of needs would figure in an ontological conversation.

Perhaps the information doesn't exist in the Philosophical canon. But I think that the Philosophical enterprise could act as a mediator for ordinary folks in understanding what other disciplines are presenting. That Philosophy is currently an 'ivory tower', inaccessible to those untrained in the field, is a strange state of affairs to me. What are philosophers talking about anyway?...human thinking, not genius thinking but ordinary human day to day thinking. Objectivity and Subjectivity is just the division between extraverts and introverts. In a democratic world, the introverts are equals.

Why should ordinary human day to day thinkers feel that they are unworthy of such an enterprise - philosophising? It really only comes down to jargon like all other specialised fields. If you take your Websters, and a good Philosophical Glossary, or a Philosophy Dictionary, you can begin to see that 'hey...they're talking about my thoughts too!'

If the jargon could be de-mystified, then a term like 'ontology' could be seen as a worthwhile topic of conversation for people. 'Who are we?'. People have been told who they are by authorities going back thousands of years. Since democracy has now become the 'staple' of political realities in the world, by some strange quirk of fate, why should citizens not be empowered to engage in questions as to 'who we area?'.

Then perhaps ordinary people will see that Philosophy should engage with other disciplines, gain feedback, extend the conversation. Wouldn't that be more interesting to a lot of people who think that following sport is the only option for their leisure time? Even sport itself could be added to the conversation...it has some connection to the mind-body issue. Spinozist basketball followers!

I'm not sure where you come from in terms of what other disciplines other than Philosophy you have engaged in. For me, the other disciplines which I have been involved in would be enhanced greatly by the philosophic dimension. Indeed business follows something of a philosphic approach since the 90s... who are we? (core business), where are we going? (vision/mission/metaphysics), customer service (ethics), party contributions (politics), aesthetics (marketing/packaging). But business also looks at the developments in the interdisciplinary fields like Psychology, Human Relations and Communications, Sociology, Biology, etc. They've co-opted the canon without us realising it.

I have had involvement in all these areas but something told me that there could be a missing 'mortar' or 'linking mechanism' or 'explanatory device', which could act as mediator and disseminator and translator.

I had thought that Philosophy could be that device. Now I'm not so sure...perhaps I'm starting to think that either Psychology or Communication Theory has the inside running. But they are still relatively new fields. Philosophy has this great tradition and history at its disposal. I can remember doing a Psych unit on Hebbian learning (habits, basically), and they cited David Hume. Why couldn't there be a way to read Hume and then link his ideas forward to Hebbian learning? We have just finished a fascinating discussion on Aristotle's principle of (non-) contradiction. It could be seen as the starting point for Communication Theory, but nobody mentioned that when I studied Communication Theory. They said that the field started in the 1940s, and may have some links to Saussere, but that was about it.

Philsophers think people want to be able to distinguish the facts. From my humble experience, I believe that people want to be able to identify connections as well as the facts. Again, we find Aristotle's category of relation staring us in the face.

No, I don't want to sprout in some theatre about it. I just want to be able to tell my daughter that there are connections out there and that if she looks for them she can find them. A rather humble goal, but a worthwhile one.

Dave.

Dave!

RE your Feb. 15th post: Not only same wavelength, but also same ocean, same universe!

I believe nothing was lost during those contentious exchanges on the various threads in the Examined Life Forums, though at times I know I wondered why was I subjecting myself to this kind of mental abuse; but as you say, we found a chink in the armor of the modern philosophical priesthood. In fact, sometimes it was actually fun, though I also went through periods of withdrawal, where I needed to rest and once again find my center, since the argumentative mode would distract me from my inner self, the who I am.

I suspect what has happened, and I think this is bigger than you and me in that it also affects many people, is that we wormed our way into the old Obejctive/Subjective debate, and in so doing gave the Subjectives tools with which to express themselves over the noisy din of the Objectives. Think that there is solid comfort in formal logic and objectivism, a kind of clinging to a rock of philosophcial certitude; whereas there is freedom of motion and risk to explore and land on whatever rock we wish, when we follow this new path of thinking. And this says that we are beings alive within a universe that creates its own 'identities'. So it is not only what 'we' think, but also what the 'universe thinks of itself', as it relates to us. This is why I said that we are then only a small jump from 'identity' to a self awareness of "identity", and that this is not so far removed from God. And that is why this is so powerful and exciting, because while traditional philosophy clings to its ancient rocks like fossilized mollusks, we who think in the new ways are free to swim within the oceans of this new knowledge, same as now we can incorporate the wealth of scientific discovery into our philosophical thoughts. Or, as you stated so elegantly, we now give voice to all the disaffected and disenfranchised human beings who had been shut out from philosophy. In effect, philosophy is now within reach of the common man/woman in terms to which they can related, and which ring true to their ears. This is the beautiful thing about democratizing any priesthood of canon laws, is that though the people may at times be chaotic and random, nevertheless they come back into themselves and again regain what is true to them, their true collective centers. I believe this was what motivated Thomas Jefferson to design a government 'of the people, for the people, by the people', even if not always perfect. But in that imperfection lies the freedom to make things better, or to discover new truths, or to find our inner being and become true to who we really are. And that is the ocean of excitement, of new worlds, and ultimately of joy and peace this freedom affords. On the other hand, to the priesthood, this is anathema.

I know we get tired at times, and get worn down by those whose first word in their vocabulary is "No, no, no!" But we have to persevere and remember that it is more tiring to swim in open currents than to cling to solid rocks, and so after dutiful rest we take up the challenge again. (You may notice that I again reentered the 'competition' at Inexpressible; we had both posted on the same message board last April/May!; and though the chances of 'winning' are about par with those of carnival games, it is fun.) It is in our nature to do this, to explore, to think through, to object when faced with untruths, and to not give up even when those untruths, masquerading as truths, are exhausting. But this is the price of evolution, of the future of philosophy, and of the growth of each one of us as human beings: it is tiring, but also most rewarding.

I think you zeroed in on what really counts in the end, that within the ground rules of 'agreement and non-coercion' there is space for dialogue, discussion, argumentation, and a free exchange of ideas. This is democracy at its best. But this is also what is most threatening to those who would keep us in the past; it is also threatening to the priesthood who had adopted philosophical canons for themselves, since now they must share this with the world, and let go of their rocks. And when they do, when we succeed in this, the rest of us can also 'let go' and swim freely.

Or dare we imagine the impossible, that we will one day walk and fly?

Take care my friend, always a joy. Thank you for your fine thoughts. Lots of work to be done.

God Bless,

Ivan

Welcome Claude!

Dave, Ivan,

What I think has happened, most everyone has neglected to identify the one venue that is current, and affects daily, which is, "Humanistic Anthropology." From my perspective, it has fulfilled the need of the masses, but philosophy seemingly ignores it; consequently, it is the venue of doers, and has been for at least the last twenty or more years when a stop and consider it approach is explored. I think that is how Corporate has begun doing what it does through the recognition of it is a “world economy,” not a specific economy. It is also apparent the lessons are being taught in at least in some High Schools, and low-level colleges across the US, and elsewhere; moreover, moms and dads can and do participate. It stands against secularized and religious dogmas, and accepts people for what they are, not what their potential is. My words? Yes, all of them but the last notion, which seems to fit here.

Humanistic Anthropology

Claude

Dear Claude (and All),

You write:

"Formal Philosophy is not for the masses, it never was, it never will be, and if you could ask Aristotle or Plato, Aquinas, or even Kierkegaard, they would tell you the same things. Why? Philosophy is a discipline of isolation, not participation; moreover, the lifestyles of all published philosophers often leaves much to be desired, in that only a meager few of them ever have a family of their own, and lived a life without serious turmoil."

And I say:

Give them bread and circus (or money and promises), and the lot of the crowd seems satisfied. The masses will probably never think philosophically, in my opinion, though there had been times when people rioted in Alexandria, Egypt, or Antioch, over whether Jesus Christ was on par with God, or just slightly below him. But these riots were not as much in response to philosophical ideals as to the personalities who verbalized them in their preachings, from their pulpits, and then succeeded in energizing the masses into political forces of violence. In my experience, having spent some fifty plus years as a cognizant being in this world, I think the masses argue over trivia, not philosophical principles, which we know are difficult to express, same as they are difficult to understand when expressed by others. This may be why philosophers are relegated to obscurity, without much adventure, or as Kant, who never really left his village through the seventy odd years of his life. Of course, there are those who are of a different breed, and who go adventuring before settling down to philosophy, but often they become novelists, like Joseph Conrad, Jack London, Ian Fleming, Rudyard Kipling, Ernest Hemingway, etc. They all had a story to tell, with philosophy of one sort or another woven in.

But as Dave says, if we can bring philosophy to the masses, then something new would happen. Ordinary human beings would realize that philosophy is not some technical jargon to which they are not privy, but rather an everyday language to which they can relate, since it is talking 'ontologically' of who they are. It's doable, I think, without causing riots.

Take care, peace and joy as always,

Ivan

Ps: will check out Humanistic Anthropology link, sounds interesting and timely.

G'day fellas,

Ivan, I really don't think that I am going to be one of those who will 'bring philosophy to the masses'. I might be supportive of those that do, like you, and from what it sounds, Claude.

I do know that I wouldn't support the 'philosophy for the amateurs' as it is portrayed at 'Examined'... far too elitist. Interestingly, I might support someone like Paul Rezendes, but he hardly ever contributes at 'Examined'.

That's the trick, in a way, getting the strong silent types to express themselves. There's so much going on at the centre of the tornado, though it seems quite calm. The very ability to be able juggle so many views, resist commitment to any one in particular, live a balanced life, and maintain one's sanity, is perhaps the greatest (and possibility most inexpressible) philosophy of all. It's a bit like how a mother manages a family, keeping everyone happy. In a way, I suspect, that's just what the human brain has evolved to do. Just the thought of how overwhelming it would be if our brain didn't preselect some of the stimuli that comes through sensory input, or indeed if we remembered everything that ever happened to us, attests to that.

Thanks for the link Claude, I did go to the Humanistic Anthropology link and the essay was very illuminating. I found 'connections' to many areas that have taken my interest. I had been reading Claude Levi-Strauss in connection to how totemistic idol worship was practiced and how groups adopt a cultural 'truth' for the purpose of group well-being.

Perhaps Anthropology does serve as the better explanatory medium than other fields. It certainly contributes to an 'ontological' approach. Though I'm not sure how ecological concerns could be included.

Physics can only go so far, before people have to deal with some of the most paradoxical (though breakthrough) ideas ever conceived by human minds. Maths has similar difficulties, and the mistake of some of the Continental Philosophers in making mathematical analogies was exemplified with the 'Sokal' affair. Unfortunately people then go ahead and use that mistake to dismiss everything they wrote. I have a real soft spot for Deleuze, and in feminist thinking, Irigaray, so I hope people will see through the controversy.

We have discovered that formal logic may assist with data definitions for artificial intelligence research, but really doesn't answer broader human needs for truth AND connection AND meaning. Again, this is not to dismiss formal logic as a beneficial tool, but I believe that formal logicians acknowledge its limitations.

One of my past-times is compiling little summary thoughts for any interesting 'line of thinking' that I come across. I summarise my thoughts on a topic in what I call 'book titles' (I've got around 2,500 now after 7 or 8 years). It's along the lines of 'if I wanted to write a book on this topic, what is the key sentence that I would use, and what would be the title of the book?'.

Below is the book title I created for the Anthropolgy link. (CGS means 'combined general speculation', I won't go into my coding system):

[quote]
CGS Exploring the Best Products of Human Expression

See Alex Anton-Luca’s ‘Humanistic Anthropology’ essay in Existence folder…
· ‘Wolf proposed that we study the ‘best’ that is thought and known in the world.’
· Guided by the truism that ‘culture is a choice made by individuals’…
· Humanistic, Psychological, Sociocultural, Anthropology are some of the branches covered

From summary/conclusion

Consistent with its eagerness to include and appropriate, humanist anthropology overlaps with and responds to numerous intellectual movements and (sub)disciplines. It betrays an undeniable Enlightenment influence, yet it stands in contrast to logical positivism in that anthropology is not nomothetic but history (i.e. human experience). It also stimulated the development of the comparative perspective through use of diachronic methods, an approach which is making a come-back. It links with sociocultural anthropology in that one has to account for and understand sociocultural anthropology in fieldwork. It shares with psychological anthropology several approaches: variant discourse on personhood, senses in a cross-cultural context, and understanding of experience through shared ideas.

Humanistic anthropology interpreted much of the discourse on meaning from the Kantian and neo-Kantian philosophy formed around 1880-1910, as in the work of interpretive anthropologists, centered around Geertz. This influence resounds in social psychology and the philosophy of psychology in their treatment of meaning as the key to studying human action. There are strong ties with symbolic anthropology, which is seen as having a place halfway between the sciences and the humanities. This perspective can partly be understood through symbolic interactionism and its concern with a basis for constructing human nature: human life is symbolic, constructed, and human beings communicate with symbols. Ties with semantics reflect the use of meaning to understand sociocultural behavior, hermeneutics, thick description, and the emic/etic distinction. This extends into ethnoscience and sociolinguitics.

Strong echoes from feminist theory and poststructuralism concern the contemporary nature of subjectivity in social life, gender relations, and literary production. The Frankfurt critical philosophy school has showed how an understanding of society does not have to be detached from those living in it. The overlap with legal anthropology presents how legally relevant and sometimes socially relevant law classifies behavior into verbal categories.
[unquote]

It was interesting for me to see that the endeavour embraces Kantian thinking, the Frankfurt school (which includes Habermas, a strong influence in Social Science), even Durkheim, as well as feminist thought. That answers essential 'inclusive' tenets and so meets my criteria for an embracing of all (if possible) the influences that make up 'the little truths here and there'. This then comes back Aristotle's observation about the many contributions to an overall accumulation of .... something... the 'best of the human canon of meaning' maybe.

The 'ontological connection', for me, comes down to 'ethics'. In a way we almost have to employ ethics even as we search for our truths. That's where Habeus Mentem comes in Ivan...thing is we have to map out the path to Habeus Mentem...I guess estimates might range from 50 to 2000 years.

So, Philosophy (as candidate path contributor) for me comes through ontology, through ethics, epistemology (though not as strictly employed as it has traditionally been, certainly not authoritative and one-tracked, and including psychology, neurobiology etc), embracing aesthetics (as Kant's third critique suggests), culminating in a personal metaphysics (vision), which can be brought to the table where collective visions, and then politics are developed. Whew...just came up with that one on the fly...I'll have to think up a book title for that now...but it does meet with contemporary notions that metaphysics is a personal thing. That nicely slots into the feminist idea that 'the personal is political'. Then we get the connection to modern business thinking, except that this is the human business and we are all shareholders.

Sorry to rattle on a bit...If Claude is the Claude from Examined then I know that he won't accept any of that because he dosen't 'accept my authority'...but c'est la vie...indeed c'est la tableau noir.

Cheers guys,

Dave.

Ivan, Dave,

Authority is of little value; it is genuine sincere thought that that possess superior value if that thought encompasses all, not the few.

I lost interest in ontology long ago, for the knowing of oneself is a personal affair of little interest to others, unless the others are concerned with mystique, or deception of trickery Ivan identifies as coercion. I am not fond of “isms,” in that prejudice and bias emerge of consequence predicated on elitist viewpoints from within nearsighted worldviews that are exclusive of ordinary people. For it is the ordinary people of the world that make it work, make it function, drive markets and economies, further education, that slowly and surely eventually give rise to voices that demand changes be made despite cultures or societies, and intolerant governments.

I believe in people, but I also believe in education; therefore, it is education of the masses that the people must attend to, and such education should not be based on elitist ideas of what it should be, but education based on real terms of what can be delivered to peoples of the world by now living generations. What can education do? If the entire world will sign on, lay down their weapons of war, and sign an enforceable agreement, the income available would,

End world hunger in less than 60 days
Reduce 65% of all illness in 1 year
Provide a home for every man, woman and child in 2 years
Eliminate joblessness worldwide within 3 years
Stabilize all world economies before the year 2006
Build or renew the world’s infrastructure with modern convenience in 7 years
Eliminate illiteracy among living generations
Improve earth’s agriculture production to where it could support 15 billion people
Totally clean up earth’s environment by the year 2025 to the level of 1500ad or better

Someone will ask, what is all that going to cost? It done properly, it will not cost any of us one cent, but if the people of earth do not “bite the bullet” and do it, what is the cost to each of us?

Human existence?

Are you willing to pay that price?

Claude

Excellent, I would support the first Global Political Party which disbanded the Industrial-Military complex (in fact you'd have to offer them incentives, pension them off etc, but eventually they'd die out), taxed all international monetary transactions, and channelled it into education, water integrity, assisted agricultural projects,...yeah, that would be the kick-start to something really worthwhile.

You are right, we don't need ontological frameworks where people innately recognise the common human family. But where there are pockets of prejudice, the education system should be able to show how the common human family (and biosphere) fits into the picture.

I'm thinking that there needs to be electoral reform as well huh? There should be a United Nations Investigation as to how 'moneyed interest groups' became a part of western democratic processes.

As you say, there are concerned parents, and thoughtful kids coming through. Perhaps the tired and played out baby boomers don't see much light at the end of the tunnel. But when you think back to how the world looked at various points in the 20th century, human resilience has a role to play as well.

Well said Clive...what's your "party" going to be called? That's another little past-time of mine...imaginative names for political parties.

Dave.

Dave, Ivan, Others,

Recently while searching through various government expenditures, a quick tally of six superpowers gave rise to the notion that hunger could be eliminated in a very short time, and a follow up search of existing food reserves reveals a well hidden fact, that adequate food reserves are stockpiled to eliminate hunger world wide, if it were only distributed to them in need of it. Because of the logistics involved, logically the military of those six nations collectively have the ability to deliver and handle the distribution. For the life of me, I cannot figure how that would hurt anyone for earth is very productive of foodstuffs. What it would do is jump-start agriculture production (always healthy for economies) and allow us to use existing storage facilities much more efficiently, and instead of paying the military for their normal duties, let them become the distribution consortium to make the notion work. We do not need to eliminate the military, simply change the role it plays.

The military of every nation has heavy equipment suitable for infrastructure building such as roads, bridges, modern airport runways, and even modernization of railroads in the areas where few are presently in place; moreover, the military has the transportation systems in place to deliver the equipment wherever needed. By using the equipment, it would not be sitting in the various storage depots costing everyone billions $$ in repairs without benefits; it would allow the civilian segment of construction to concentrate on building homes, communications, power, water, sewer and other local municipal utilities in need of upgraded facilities, or the construction of new facilities where there are none.

Religious institutions need to change their roles to that of administering all charities, and learn to live their belief systems without instilling prejudice and bias; instead of trying to convert everyone, practice the tolerance avowed by every religion, which also removes a negative word from everyone’s vocabulary – hypocrite. Once the power of authority of a religion accepts the role it could be playing in world society, religions could become the Respected vocational source of basic education for every child on planet earth, which in time would insure that the institutions of higher learning could concentrate on advanced studies that surely will be needed within the next thirty-years. Missionaries that attempt to convert, should become missionaries that teach, not preach.

I think those things could be accomplished, and would give everyone a sense of common trust, which is sorely missing in the world we live in today. I have only touched on three specific segments of the industrialized world, but it will not happen without an expressed and implicit agreement among a “Confederation of Nations,” that offhand should consist of: The European Nations, United Kingdom, all Ex-Soviet Nations, China, both Koreas, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Here, it must be iterated, South America and Africa present peculiar and specific problems in that, neither of them has an organized focused Central Organization established that resolve issues among the nations that are in place on either of the huge land masses. I am not well versed enough in politics of either Continent to even hazard a solution to the multitude of problems that face each of them. The listed nations should be sufficient for the short term beginning to get the ball rolling; if it would happen, it would not take long before nations everywhere would be clamoring for admission to the program.

If religions do not accept the role delegated to them, simply apply a Tax Burden on them, which effectively reduces their incomes to Zero. I honestly think most religions would in fact welcome such a challenge, for if not, what does that say about the religion?

What would be the cost of admission for any nation to join the program? Lay down your arms, and pick up shovels.

Claude

It would be interesting to hear from those who might like to argue against such notions...

From what I remember the Peace Corps program during the JFK administration was highly thought of by the community. Community projects can provide some outstanding success stories deriving from a single 'idea'. For example we had a fellow who was well known here in OZ as a member of the America's Cup winning team from '84 (sorry to bring up old wounds!!). His name is Ian Keirnan, and he had this idea for a 'Clean Up Australia Day'.

It started about 6-7 years ago, families, kids, community groups with litter bags. Then people started donating Earth moving equipment, rivers were dragged. Now it's the biggest community project by far in the Country involving hundreds of thousands of people on several days a year, and I believe has spread to other countries.

Amazing what a little imagination and timing for an 'idea whose time is right' can do.

You are also right Claude, in that most people dislike authority, but don't mind pitching in when they are allowed joint-ownership of ideas and projects. Here's a bunch of websites which I've been to in the last half a day, which shows that there are lots of folks already focussing on these positive notions. Not quite the big ideas of yours Claude (your thoughts reminded me of my old friends Erwin Lazslo and Hazel Henderson, whose works I used to read before I took an interest in Philosophy and found out about relativism and objective reality):

Public Conversations org
Civic Perspectives
GrassRoots Economic Organizing
Choices Education Program at Brown University

The first link is particularly poignant. It is about the divide between prochoice/prolife groups, and how a facilitator bought the leaders together in secret dialogue after the murder of two pro-choice workers in '95.

Part of their story was:

In writing this article, we came to an impasse when one side mentioned the Declaration of Independence. The prolife participants wished to cite the Declaration as a presentation of their core belief that the right to life is inalienable and self-evident. The prochoice members passionately objected to what they saw as an appropriation of a document that they also cherish. To them, the Declaration affirms every person's right to life and liberty.

In these and all of our discussions of differences, we strained to reach those on the other side who could not accept - or at times comprehend - our beliefs. We challenged each other to dig deeply, defining exactly what we believe, why we believe it, and what we still do not understand.

These conversations revealed a deep divide. We saw that our differences on abortion reflect two world views that are irreconcilable.

If this is true, then why do we continue to meet?

First, because when we face our opponent, we see her dignity and goodness. Embracing this apparent contradiction stretches us spiritually. We've experienced something radical and life-altering that we describe in nonpolitical terms: ''the mystery of love,'' ''holy ground,'' or simply, ''mysterious.''

We continue because we are stretched intellectually, as well. This has been a rare opportunity to engage in sustained, candid conversations about serious moral disagreements. It has made our thinking sharper and our language more precise.

Hi guys, all,

RE Claude's:

"End world hunger in less than 60 days
Reduce 65% of all illness in 1 year
Provide a home for every man, woman and child in 2 years
Eliminate joblessness worldwide within 3 years
Stabilize all world economies before the year 2006
Build or renew the world’s infrastructure with modern convenience in 7 years
Eliminate illiteracy among living generations
Improve earth’s agriculture production to where it could support 15 billion people
Totally clean up earth’s environment by the year 2025 to the level of 1500ad or better "

And Dave's:

"Excellent, I would support the first Global Political Party which disbanded the Industrial-Military complex (in fact you'd have to offer them incentives, pension them off etc, but eventually they'd die out), taxed all international monetary transactions, and channelled it into education, water integrity, assisted agricultural projects,...yeah, that would be the kick-start to something really worthwhile."

I'll vote for you! Of course the rechannelling of efforts and assets towards solving the problems generated by a legacy of coercion can only improve the lot of humankind. There are two ways to approach this: One, go the political route, and enlist like minds into party action to seek and find agreement amongst the masses; or the other, seek to raise human consciousness regarding these issues so that in time, and this may take 50 to 2000 years, the operations centered on coercion dissolve, in the same way the colonial enterprises of the previous centuries dissolved when slavery ended. So seek agreement, a heightened awareness of the agreements that make life so rich, and the wealth that comes from this will find its way into human reality.

I like to think of something I once read about Sean Connery, and as to why he is so successful an actor. Not only was he trained in Shakespearean theater, but he know how to hold back. Strange as this may seem, rather than giving it your all, it is sometimes more effective to hold back. So think of the ideas that will nudge human consciousness up a notch, but hold back. Patience. It will come of its own, if its worth a damn, or fail into obscurity. I suspect that facing reality with a sense of truth, realism, rewarding agreement and being seriously aware of the flaws generated by coercion, and being aware of this, reality will change in ways we had not expected, and for the better. Of course, if this happens, and people pick up on it, it may happen much sooner than 2000 years!

Take care friends, will talk soon,

Ivan

Hi all!

"Can we have a philosophy that can contain contradiction and non-contradiction at the same time, as an ontological reality of Being?'

As we've proved (over the past year in some other threads of course), the answer is, yes! The road was long, but thru 'divine intervention', success was ours for the taking!


I must say, all along, it never really passed the smell test. Something was amiss, and I wasn't quite able to figure it out. I knew it, but wanted to seek the limitations of it, to its own rational end. But the analogy to mathematics, paradox, Paul Davies, Objectivism v. Subjectivism(and God of course-progressive revelation), put it all into its proper perspective. So basically, by using the same human logic that those use to defend their own claims of non-contradiction, turned out to be the same logic that worked against them in the end! FL cannot handle issues relative to Being!!!!

Just ask Spock!

And you know, all of it required precious Time!


Job well done guys!


Walrus
------------
Logic...problem of verification...we need some other tool. And God's tool is bigger than ours!

Ivan, Dave,

I believe if the US, or the European Nations took the first steps such events as were expounded here would literally produce a snowball effect almost immediately. I have thought about this for several years now, and have had several fruitful exchanges with members of Congress. It seems such a proposal would be met with skepticism at first, but the success of only one or two examples would surely convince people in the right places that it just might work. To force it would be wrong in my opinion; therefore, it should begin through a volunteer effort by a major world entity, but I am not sure that Congress could be sold on the notion until some semblance of world peace is in hand; however, it also seems that world peace is a pipe-dream without benefits that offset the vagaries of conflict. In other words, it is most difficult to convince people that if they forego their proclivity to fight, they earn the right to work and earn a decent living.

Do either of you think it possible to start a grass-roots movement that would attract government to the cause? I am sure Corporate America would donate generously to further such a plan, especially if it could be convinced it could expand their business potential. During the past five years, we can readily observe the commitment by US Corporations to invest heavily in many third-world nations to establish footholds in advance of anticipated or projected economic upturns for the nations involved. That should be an indicator that most nations honestly want to become involved in such an expansion of the “global economy.” Obviously such an endeavor needs broad support among existing world powers. How do we obtain that?

Claude

WJ,

Nobody ever said that FL could handle the issues relative to being: moreover, you cannot show us where anyone ever wrote that it would.

Claude

Claude!

Mitch did. And you certainly implied it. Remember, you think your existence requires no predication.

Key words: apriori and existence.

I welcome correction.

Carry on gentlemen!

Walrus
--------------

Life is good

WJ,

My existence is predicated. You have yet to prove it otherwise.

Claude

Claude!

How can that be? Existence is a noun?

Spock
---------------
I've told you before Jim, we Vulcan's are only programmed to exist; nothing more nothing less.

WJ,

You still don't get it do you?

Perhaps a refresher in English would be of benefit.

Good luck to you in the world.

Claude

Claude!

Come, come. 1+1=2; nothing more, nothing less. No amount of experience will change it!

Walrus

Dear WJ, Walrus,

Welcome! Nice to see you here.

Well, I guess some progress had been made as refers to 'being' and whether or not FL can be expected to address this. I never like to think of philosophy as a 'win or lose' proposition, though I think that we did have some sort of victory, since we were able to show that the mind, and our being, is more than what is merely reasonable. And since FL can only be reasonable, then we transcended it. However, I am also cautious enough to know that logic as a tool is a very valuable one, and something I would not exchange for old fashioned ignorance and superstition. But like any tool it too can be used for both good or ill, so it is not infallible in our search for truth. Nor, for that matter, would I use the simple tools of logic to construct a higher order metaphysics of being, any more than I would go into space with a hammer and saw to build an Earth orbiting space station. Still, I like what happened, so... Glory be to God! We have a metaphysical victory!

Take care Walrus, old friend. God Bless.

Ivan

Dear Claude, Dave, WJ, and all,

Claude writes:

"I believe if the US, or the European Nations took the first steps such events as were expounded here would literally produce a snowball effect almost immediately. I have thought about this for several years now, and have had several fruitful exchanges with members of Congress. It seems such a proposal would be met with skepticism at first, but the success of only one or two examples would surely convince people in the right places that it just might work."

I think this is on track, and I too would endorse this view, especially one not forced but enhanced through support from many quarters, same as 'Earth Day' got support from grassroots levels. All this raises consciousness, to find agreement amongst like minded individuals, and would help us get past the initial inertia of any new enterprise, without generating negative attention to what it is that is happening.

I suspect that it would be logical to start by examining what had already been done by various organizations, both within government and corporations, as well as those not for profit, or even spiritual. By watching what these organizations do, writing letters and communicating with people there, all in a non-critical and non-confrontational way, can gain us a better understanding of where the paths to communications lie, and how we can influence them. I think Claude is right, that ideas of this magnitude would be met with skepticism, for how do you undo what had been the modus operandi from earliest days of Alexander and Julius Caesar to Ghengis Khan to the conquests of the Americas and Africa? Our economic growth is still in that initial 'big bang' burst of energy which has now run up against the Earth's opposing forces: of global warming and ecological and other pending human disasters. So we need a paradigm shift in the world's thinking, which I believe many are already aware of this. The real question, then, is how do we do this? Do we join these organizations? Do we have active letter writing campaigns, both on and off the net? Or do we merely watch and wait? Interesting to come up with a plan, I would think.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the future of philosophy is very much in that direction, that a new mind will come forth of all this. But we should also not lose sight of the fact that a new sense of 'identity', as a function of context within the whole, is still a long way from a world that will energetically seek agreement and be repulsed by coercion. Still, we have to start somewhere, so looking in on what had been done to date, as Dave showed in links above, is a likely good place to start. And if done right, in a larger metaphysical context, then this movement would 'snowball' as said.

Take care, gotta go, early start tomorrow.

Ciao, ciao,
Ivan

Hi WJ,

One side of a bridge plus another side of a bridge equals two sides of one bridge. 1 + 1 = 1.

Dave.

I was watching Larry King today, interviewing Dick Cheney's wife. She was talking about a partcular topic but mentioned this project in inner city New York called 'Free Lunch'. Apparently it's a project which provides free lunches to disadvantaged kids at school.

I had thought about this during the day. It's such a simple concept, but with a compelling theme. I've been involved in the corporate world and worked in Hong Kong etc, and know about how people in this area are willing to go to a banquet for the most obscure reasons for lunch. What if there was an international movement which intercepted the idea (occasionally, not all the time), and suggested that rather than have the corporate lunch today, everyone eats in. While deciding to eat in the office they pay the international 'free lunch' organisation the equivilent of what they would have paid out for the banquet, which has been foregone. So, they actually eat a lunch worth $50 for ten people, but pay what they would have paid for the banquet (say $300), to the international free lunch group. There would probably have to be some compensation to the restaurants, but maybe they could gain in advertising as being the 'foregone participating restaurant of choice', or something like that.

Let's say we estimate that in the Western world every day there are 1 million ten person corporate banquets, and 200,000 of those could be, hypothetically, foregone. That would be 50 million dollars a day, or about 15 billion dollars a year into the coffers of the free lunch international group. I used to work for one of the world's largest chemical manufacturers, and that was their annual turnover. Not bad for a volunteer organisation huh?

There could be similar foregoings in many areas when you think about it. Cigarettes, alcohol, take-away dinners. If there were similar prospects in all those areas we could easily be looking at $50 billion dollars a year. This would be close to a tenth of Bill Gates annual income. Maybe one of the corporate goals could be to match Bill Gates income in the next ten years!! Of course, in the interim there would have to have been a large contribution to feeding disadvantaged children in the world. And since it's based on their being at school, a prerequisite is that schools have to be built.

In this, the first meeting of said group, I hereby promise my $1 joining fee, and propose a motion that we initiate a committee. I further nominate Ivan as President, Claude (who else, since he ran rings around me with that double entry book-keeping logic), as Treasurer, and WJ as publicity oficer. I'd be happy to be a regular committee person with the responsibilty of making the sandwiches.

What do you think?

Dave.

Dave, all!

First, I like the 1+1 =1. Too cool! Also, how 'bout 2 halves comprising one brain! Second, I often joke at work about my ficticious men's club meetings....men, men, men ,men! (At this point in our relationship, my wife can only sit there and shake her head;) another story... .

Anyway, on a personal note, I agree that 'it' is all good. Frankly, I think that because of my vocation (engineering) and musician status, those experiences have given me an advantage over other's by using 'both halves'! Kind of forces one to integrate concepts learned from both the arts and sciences, as it were.

When we talk about dichotomies, this is where we find such tension in the human psyche. I think any 'successful' future of philosophy in the 21st century must embrace the human need to integrate much of these 'tools', in order to find real meaning, truth and practical use and value. Otherwise, we simply have HALF of the equasion; unfinished music. Or, pieces of an unintegrated whole, if you will.

Life is good! Let's go out and share with other's, how one might live it!

Walrus
------------
All you need is love; ya, ya-da da-dah!

Dear Friends,

Below is a list of links gleaned from various entries in this Forum, for your reference:


United People of the World
http://www.our-side.com/chap7-msn-goals.htm

Spirit of Freedom and Voluntaryism
http://www.freedom.com/spirit_frame.htm

Council for Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

Dennis J. Kucinich, Peace Efforts Action Center
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/action/peace.htm

BioGems, Saving Earth's Wild Places
http://www.savebiogems.org/

Tikkun, A Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture & Society
http://www.tikkun.org/

LightShift2000, Meditation for World Peace
http://www.lightshift.com/

Global Strategies Project
http://www.bashar.com/GSP/index.htm

Achievement through Wholeness of Awareness
http://www.atwahome.com/

OnLine Noetics Network, Wisdom Walk via e-mail
http://www.wisdomtalk.org/

Peter Koestenbaum's Leadership Philosophy (see Feb.18,2002, Ethics in Education)
http://www.pib.net/

Millennium Forum, UN
http://www.millenniumforum.org/

International Decade for a Culture of Peace
http://www.nobelweb.org/

European Network against Arms Trade
http://www.antenna.nl/enaat/

SIPRI, Stockholm Peace Research Institute
http://www.sipri.se/


I am sure that we know of many more, so add them if you like, so we could all share in the great web network of like minded people who desire a better world in Peace.

Talk soon, Ivan

Ivan, All,

Need to put more thought into this, but at the moment, it appears to me government support is necessary to establish a solid base to work from. I am not talking about financial support, but support for the interaction required in third-world nations where a working model could be setup. Ideally it would eventually be a joint effort with logistics help from government.

Claude

Ivan, Claude, WJ,

Ivan, thanks heaps for the links. You know, just the effort to collect all those links together is an act of kindness and a genuine consideration of other.

WJ, the embracing of dichotomies...sometimes I use the term 'diametrically opposed'. It sort of helps me realise that myself and the person I am diametrically opposed to are actually at different points on the same circle.

Claude, just as Ivan's links show... there are many people (extremely talented folks too) who are getting on with it. And it's not as if there haven't been folks who were oriented that way all through history.

I was quite caught up in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in '98. There was a commemorative book issued, and it was amazing to read some of the stories from people all over the world who have made real positive contributions to the well being of others. In a way, I hope I can show that positive aspect to younger folks who might feel that the world is a rather cold and uncaring place.

Your thoughts about the First World having the responsibility to lead the way, needing leadership from Government, and identifying a model are very good points.

I thought back to the beginning of that 'contradiction' thread where I mentioned the Chinese symbol for crisis, which carries with it the 'opportunity' aspect. Wouldn't it be something if Afghanistan turned out to be a 'model' Middle East country, similar (but with obvious different inherent character) to how Sweden is considered to be a model European country.

Dave.

Hi Dave, Claude, WJ,

Here is another link of interest:

World Hunger Program
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/World_Hunger_Program/

Oxfam International
http://www.oxfam.org/default.htm

I suspect that the change in consciousness we are addressing is a multiphase, multi front, project. A natural place to start, as stated above, is in satisfying the physical needs of human beings around the world, especially within those geo-political areas experiencing social dysfunctions such as war, crime, terrorism, failed economies, disease, environmental devastation, etc. But another area, which may be equally important is the area of Ethics, or as Peter Koestenbaum states in his recent missal on Ethics and Education, in his Leadership Thought, http://www.pib.net/# :

"Teaching ethics becomes topic one in every career and profession. Success is based on credibility, and credibility flows straight out of character. The universal law is this: a society works exactly as well as it is ethical. For ethics is coeval with maturity. Ethics is the measure of human development, social and individual."

This reverts back to communications, as it applies to the young minds who will be the future citizens of the world, and how they interact with one another. Will it be through confrontation and coercion, or through communications and agreements? This will be very much a question of Ethics, as my feeble contribution states on the Examined Life: "Logic of Agreement vs. Coercion" in the current Issue of the Journal, Vol. 3, Issue 9: http://examinedlifejournal.com/archives/vol3ed9/agreement.shtml

Food for thought, and the soul.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

Thanks Ivan and all for the thoughts!!! I agree, it certainly took some effort to compile all of the aformentioned...

Peace, Love and (hey, how bout a little smooth jazz)

Walrus
--------------
Ethics: To know these things is not enough, we must express that knowing by actually living them-NDE

see

http://www.www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

G-man

G-man,

Thanks for the 'Paraconsistent Logic' link above. Very interesting, will study it further.

Ciao, ciao, Ivan

Ontology has been incorrectly classified academically as being a 'branch of Metaphysics'.

This is indeed unfortunate & has lead to much misunderstanding. Ontology, correctly understood is, in fact, "Divine Metaphysics". Metaphysics, is, in fact, a branch of Ontology.

Ontology includes within itself all the relavant subjects of "Being"

i.e. - The Philosophy of Being
The Psychology of Being
The Science of Being...etc. etc......

.......all form part of Ontology. For this reason, Ontology will indeed soon become the most spoken about subject on the Planet.

When the time is right, Ontology will be redefined correctly.

And to think...I had come to think of Ontology as a New Age form of [Computer] Library Science:)G-man

Wonderful isnt it(?)...Ontology includes every subject known to man within itself & touches upon every area of life.

There is nothing but "Being" & the meaning of it is "Absolute".

Ontology immediately recognises the 'Primacy of the Spiritual' & provides the POTENTIAL to translate "Oneness" into 'All Practical Affairs'.

protomutant

PLATO'S LEGACY TRANSCENDED.
(edited 10/28/02)

I will aspire to show in this paper that Plato's legacy, as it has come down to us, is no longer applicable to modern philosophical thinking, and needs to be transcended. The following quote is from --Greek Philosophy-- online:

"Socrates (469-399), despite his foundational place in the history of ideas, actually wrote nothing. Most of our knowledge of him comes from the works of Plato (427-347), and since Plato had other concerns in mind than simple historical accuracy it is usually impossible to determine how much of his thinking actually derives from Socrates... The fundamental aspect of Plato's thought is the theory of "ideas" or "forms." Plato, like so many other Greek philosophers, was stymied by the question of change in the physical world." http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SOCRATES.HTM , http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/PLATO.HTM

* * *

Plato's "ideas" and "form" may not have originated with Socrates, or his gifted pupil, but they were likely currency in philosophical (abstract) thinking of the times. It was believed God is perfection, hence (by extension) there were ideas and forms that defined this perfection, and in so understanding them, we could hope to glimpse into the perfection of God. Plato's (allegorical) cave is such a glimpse, though it is meant only to illustrate that we fail in this, for we can perceive only this perfection's shadows.

Now, this idea is persistent unto today, where we philosophically argue in favor our Absolute Truths, and their essences, as a definition of ontological Being. This is truly Plato's legacy, for his writings persisted until modern times, and one for which we must be truly thankful. Or, as Alfred North Whitehead had said, "All philosophy is a footnote to Plato." However, is this representative of reality as we know it today, 2400 years later? That is what I wish to address in this paper. Does the idea of perfect form still fit into current understanding of reality and being?

If we start from a platform of idealized perfection, as did thinkers current with Plato, then we are of necessity driven into philosophical models that demand we establish our truths on this platform. However, not to belittle their great thinking, but perfection is not observable in the real universe. Cosmic reality is messy, space is dirty with dust, the planets do not exhibit geometric perfection in their orbits but chaotic ellipticals instead, and worse, life secretes unsavory fluids. This is fact. The way Plato's contemporaries dealt with this fact was to conclude that reality is merely an 'imperfect' manifestation within God's perfection. Human beings were also as much at fault in their imperfections, so that only an "aristocracy" of the best, philosophically more sophisticated thinkers, can hope to aspire for it, and the rest of us, again of necessity, are forced to obey this aristocracy. Democracy, seen thus, was never meant for the common man, or woman, but for the select representatives of an imagined "perfection". So here was the dilemma: Reality does not fit the ideal. In response, then all intellectual efforts are applied to subvert reality's failure in order to establish a more ideal order. In effect, the human mind has to bring order where there is apparent chaos in the manifestation of an imperfect universe. Put this way, it may seem quaint and a little naive for us moderns, if not egocentric(since we have to "fix" what is a "mess" in the universe), but this is the legacy we inherited today.

This is not to belittle perfection, nor Plato's ideas, for there is something in the human psyche that would like to see it realized. However, it should be put into perspective from what we now know of our reality. Even the observer affects the observed, as we learned from Quantum physics, so there are no solid foundations from which we can anchor our minds in this search for perfection. In fact, it would seem that the opposite happens, that we as observers, with an intelligence for which we have given ourselves credit, that it is we create who thought; we should instead be aware that in fact we are also perpetually surprised to find the universe has intelligence designed throughout. The universe in its totality is already its own algorithm, as Paul Davies writes in "The Mind of God," and we are merely the faltering observers within it. It is not that we are imperfect beings in the manner of Plato's world, but rather that our minds are imperfect in our reason's ability to capture the whole. We still cannot grasp all of the intelligence built into the universe's ability to become itself.

This, therefore, reverses the process, that it is not we who define perfection, but that it has already predefined itself in some way that to us appears generally chaotic, or imperfect. Hence, the dilemma, how do we built on a philosophical platform on that which we cannot understand in the same way it "understands" itself? And this is where we transcend Plato's legacy, for now the perfection of the universe is not in some geometric ideal, which was created by us, but rather in the messiness it exhibits. Or, as Albert Einstein was to have said, "The universe does not play dice", which becomes understandable in that it is we who are unable to guess its design, not that the universe is lacking in its design. So the chaos perceived is in fact, in terms of itself, exactitude, whereas we as observers can only see chaos as the rule, relieved only occasionally by patterns of order we understand. But as to how the universe interacts with itself, this order is already infinitely determined. What we then see is what it is, as it structured itself.

So this is the point of departure we have from Plato's times, that the universe is perfection, but not as determined by our minds, or as imagined in Plato's contemporaries mind, but as determined by its own "mind". That the universe can then somehow assemble itself in such a way as to exhibit, perpetuate, and evolve life, or more specifically, evolve consciousness, is then a miracle that is beyond our comprehension. What it means is that "intelligence" reverts back not on our lack of understanding it, but instead on its infinitely incredible algorithmic capabilities. When seen this way, it is no longer that the universe is some idealized perfection, of which reality is its messy imperfection, but rather that the perfection of the universe is made manifest in what the human mind would call imperfect, or messy and chaotic, though it is perfect within itself. And that is the idea of our times: The universe is perfectly what it is. So this is the point of departure, for here we truly transcend Plato and enter into a new way of seeing reality, and our place in it.

The question that arises, of necessity again, is how is man, or human beings, to find a place within such a universe? If we live in a universe that is only perfect in its perceived imperfections, then what hope is there to use this understanding as a foundation of philosophical thought that would in some idealized way lead us to the truth? A daunting prospect, but not insurmountable, and one that leads us away from the errors of Plato's contemporaries into a whole new dimension of philosophical thinking. We are who we are, in the same way the universe is what it is, and from this platform then, again of necessity, requires that we have a better understanding of who we are within this reality. Think of this as being a very modern idea, so much so that it is not yet mainstream. And if so, then how do we interact with each other, so as to not damage that understanding of who we are? How do human beings respect their uniqueness within reality not as imperfect beings, though our consciousness is still far from perfect, but as real definitions of being, of identity? Again, we are not imperfect beings within the manifestations of an imperfect reality, but rather we are who we are within the perfection of this reality. If so, then what, and who, each one of us represents is a true and valid being, one which must gain respect in that same way that we have learned to respect that the universe is what it is. And the only way to do so, to gain this respect, is to show it in relation to each other, in effect, to do by agreement, and not by coercion. This transcends Plato's legacy, for it now places us into a new dimension of philosophical thinking, where each human being is validated, and for whom there are certain unalienable freedoms. These freedoms are then not dictated by an aristocracy of the "best" social Guardians, as postied by Plato's thinking, but rather is embodied in our laws of agreements that safeguard who we are. This new law of agreement, formalized in our social contracts, is universal to us all. If there is to be an aristocracy of social Guardians, it would be only that they are the most conscious of our human rights, and thus they insure our rights' inviolability.

None of this was foreseen by Plato, nor his contemporaries, for in his day slavery was accepted. Today, it is not. The universe of Plato's world was run by an ideal (God like) perfection we humans could never aspire to, for we were too imperfect. Instead, the universe of the neo-scientific modern age accepts it is totally imperfect, yet it is a perfection within itself. We are then in the new legacy of that new way of seeing things, that each human being, as an evolved human consciousness within this universe, has value within that infinitely ordered algorithm of reality, as it interrelates within itself. It thus becomes, for each one of us, who we are.

I should point out that this way of seeing reality is not yet germane for us, for we are still deeply rooted in the methodology of the ancient thinkers, especially as it applies to religious and moral values (Christian, Moslem, Jewish, etc, fundamentalism). However, this does not negate that a growing body of thought has built up around this new awareness of reality, though predominantly secular, and that from this new platform is growing a new philosophical awareness of human beings as free agents, who then have the right to be who they are. And to do this, they need only to seek to do through agreement with other free agents, as opposed to doing through coercions, and to be protected from these coercions, or trespass, by social (democractic and constitutional) contract.

So this is the future of philosophy, that the absolute values of perfection are already built in, into this universe that by appearance is anything but perfect. The challenge is then to validate our existence in terms of how this universal reality has manifest, itself, in such a way that human beings within it have the ability to develop a conscious mind. And from that new philosophical awareness will evolve a journey of a newer consciousness of ourselves, and of the universe, so that 2400 years hence, we will think fondly of our philosophical predecessors as quaint mythmakers, though not the authors of Absolute Truth. In time, human consciousness will transcend the legacy of our past thinkers, and there will be a new awareness of our place in the universe, not according to how our minds define it, but according to how the universe is in the process of defining itself, and us. And that will be a giant philosophical leap forward.

Many thanks for your patience with my intellect's imperfect ability to bring to understanding something that is in fact already far more perfect than I am.


Ivan D. Alexander

Ivan: In an Age prior to Parallel Processors (Supercomputer Semiconductor Microprocessors), generations of Ontologists and Epistemologists played ongoing tourneys of Ping pong and Leap Frog, all so focused on content and substance that contextual methods were not only ignored, but not even considered. For me personally, Plato, Shakespeare, Einstein--arguably others, too--belong together, as equal minds. This, and all else said, we are still limited by a cognitively arrived at method that allows us to extend calculus measurement means beyond relativity...indeed, beyond speculation...so as to allow co-ordinate simultaneous dual (interior-exterior) measurement verifications involving a singular perceptor (be it human subject or automata). No singular receptor/perceptor can at once occupy a Here-Now Space-Time point that is both interior and exterior to a system. As Uncle Albert said, "There are no priveleged observers."

Hey, Ivan: Puzzler Question: What is perfectly imperfect, whilst imperfectly perfect?:) (Clue: Don' ask ya Motha:) G-man

Hi G-man, equal minds in genius, I agree, but more poetry than necessarily susbstance. This is why I said that in the distant future, many fine minds of today will be remembered foundly as quaint mythmakers, in the same we view the Illiad, or the Upanishads, or the heavenly astrology of ancient Babylon. No harm, just good fun. When we finally realize that we can tap directly into a consciousness that far surpasses ours, and do it with measurable validity, things will change. But until then, we will sit around the fireside and chew the fat, until the time we can chew the fat on a distant planet inhabitted by other beings, by a fireside doing the chewing with us, it is a lonely enterprise. So for now, as you say, we are the singular receptor/perceptor without priviledged points of observation.

As for the Puzzler, "You go me, Babe!"

Ivan

Dear G-man,

There was something you said which caught my attention only days later, when you said:

"In an Age prior to Parallel Processors (Supercomputer Semiconductor Microprocessors)"...

It occurred to me that we indeed do live in an age of parallel processors, and not just running everything through one central processor. I mean this to be understood that we have many bodies of thought, and along with them many social and intellectual institutions, which process our thoughts and actions, so that society is like a giant multiple processing center enacting our social thought, as well as our intellectual thought.

I think an illustration of this could be analogous to religion, where every religion thinks itself the key to all human knowledge and proper actions. In most cases, what we think or do gets processed through the sacred writings, or through the teachings of a Messiah like teacher or guru. If we fail in our individual thoughts and actions to cooperate with the accepted religious teachings, then we are in error with them, and possible punished or ostracized. However, in the society that has evolved in a post-Platonic Legacy, the judgement of our being is no longer through one central processor, but through a multiplicity of processessings. Some of this is due to the post Enlightenment period, where human beings developed a sense of themselves as being more than what their religion teaches, and some of it is still developing today, where our sense of human rights is founded not on any one person's teachings, but on a growing body of philosophical awareness. And for this, religion has taken a lesser role in most modern societies, though there is an effort to bring it back into society, with obvious needs to redress many social ills and moral ills, to once again reestablish a central processor. However, I suspect that this effort belongs to the past, and not to the future.

We can always choose, as free human beings, what it is we wish to believe, and to what religion we wish to belong. I admire my Baha'i friends, because they never force their beliefs on you, though they are accepting of everyone's belief, even if they think theirs is the best. Well, it is a matter of choice, and I choose to remain a secular man. And in my choice, which I would not necessarily characterize as being right for everyone, I remain open to the multiplicity of ideologies, philosophies, and beliefs, so that whether or no I transgress any one Messianic teacher does not trespass on my freedom. In return, I am tolerant of all beliefs, and respectful of them, for they may be right for those who believe in them. In the same way I am a nominal Christian, because I believe Jesus Christ's teachings of "Love one another" to be paramount. But it is not an exclusively Christian idea, so why brand oneself with a central label? Therefore, multiple processing may very well be the future of the post Plato Legacy world, where we as individuals free to choose, we are then open to many ideas, and yet restrained by one central idea, that we do not trespass or coerce others. And that, to me, is an incredible evolution of consciousness, not my idea, but as how the world in its multiplicity of ideals and cultures seems to be evolving. I think it will be a very bright and exciting future.

Thanks for your insightful comments.

Ivan

Ivan: You allude to the 'All & None' idea, which is always welcome insofar as it humbles. I was trying to go beyond our Age of Professional Specialization(s) Institutionally, by drawing an neuronal analogue...which is how the human brain (fundamentally processes, no matter what attained level of education) as well as supercomputers tend to operate, thereby bypassing the traffic jam problems.

You also raise the issue of devoutness and secularism as mutually hand-in-hand compatibles. I agree with you fully on this. I believe problems stem from limited segmented views, which have been unable to see things in a more full 'universalized' sense. The image of a bicycle wheel with its rim, spokes, and center hub is an easy example. Each religion has its 'mystic' section, which is about the hub and thus will tend to unify all differences by pointing to the whole wheel. Yet, rim and spoke-oriented denominations often have entirely different, albeit kaleidescopic, perspectives. Fact is, the more we come to know, and the wiser we become, acknowledgeably, the less certain we are of our own retentive sensible control center. Hence, when the Air Traffic Control Tower Announces with absolute Certainty its Savant-esque Self-Realization, be advised to make alternative travel arrangements:) Thanks for your reply, Ivan:) G-man

PLATO'S LEGACY TRANSCENDED: Postscript.

Though the above paper, dated July 15, 2002, (posted above) was submitted to the Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal for their call to papers on the topic "Plato's Legacy", it was rejected by the editors as unsuitable due to a rather vague explanation that the paper is "historically incorrect". Of course, in looking through their "Roundtable Discussion: Plato's Theory of "Forms"", it became immediately obvious that my ideas were so far off center as to be beyond the perimeter of what was allowed. (See: http://examinedlifejournal.com/articles/template.php?shorttitle=platoround1&authorid=71 ). Or as the moderator expressed in the Roundtable's introduction: "The only major shortcoming I can see in this selection is that we did not manage to find anyone who would take the bull by the horns and argue openly that Plato did not have a theory of forms." So this tacit acquiescence closes the circle on the parameters involved, and for someone like myself to come out and say that Plato had become in essence irrelevant in modern times is something akin to heresy. I do not regret the paper being shunned from this noble philosophy forum, though I am amused that though the editors were quick to point out that they were rejecting my paper NOT on the basis of their disagreement with it, it seems that this was exactly why it was rejected. I am not a true believer and have not paid adequate homage to their philosophy god, Plato, and hence Plato's Legacy Transcended was doomed to obscurity from the start, at least by that august body. To me it is surprising that Plato can still command such serious devotion.

It is not that I do not appreciate Platonic thinking. Plato's legacy lives on in our ability to view the universe in the abstract of ideas and forms, or universal concepts and mathematical expressions. But we must move on from seeing the universe only through our abstract forms, as constructs of our minds. We already have progressed to some extent by seeing the universe as its own infinite algorithm. If we are to progress beyond where our philosophical thinking is stuck at present, we must accept that Plato's Legacy has already been transcended. It is time to move on.

Farewell to the Philosophy of the Examined Life. Its shortcoming is that it cannot tolerate a dissenting opinion, not even with an editor's footnote, and I suspect has fallen somewhat behind in the times.

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

It's been a while...

Chin up old chum...

The good news is that I've got a local version of the 'free lunches for kids' program up and happening. I showed the people a copy of parts of this forum as my vision/prospectus.

We incorporated the community development officer from the local council. He had the great idea of taking the idea to kids in well off schools. They ran a brain storming session, and you should have seen the ideas rattling off those little minds!

What we came up with was a business/kids in well off schools/local government/meals on wheels joint venture to provide meals for kids in poorer city districts and aboriginal communities. It incorporates donations to CARE Australia's program for feeding kids in third world countries.

Thanks for your contributions, and Claude, WJ, and G-Man. I showed some of the kids (some) of the posts, and they have even developed an interest in Philosophy. They want Claude to come to Australia and lecture. The kids have created a petition to send to the United Nations based on Claude's ideas about all that world problem-solving in the near future, stopping military spending etc. They have also got local business looking at
Forum for the Future -UK and the ideas there.

Good work all!! Philosophy in action!!

Ivan, I think I can gurantee that sales in your book 'Dreams of the World Trilogy' will go through the roof...you are a legend!

By the way...what's it about?

Dave.