The Paradox of Our Existence
I'm currently writing a book about my own philosophy which is a Contextualist variation on a hippie "Rainbow Warrior" philosophy that mixes Socratic wisdom with Taoism. Its based on the assumption that existence is ultimately paradoxical from a mere mortal perspective and, metaphorically speaking, we are the ants climbing the Empire State building utterly incapable of perceiving the Big Picture. We are using nature to study nature and, ultimately, must take everything upon faith including our own knowledge, awareness, and free will if we are to ever hope to possess any.
Essentially, I'm leveraging my experience with the Tao Te Ching and my own Contextual vagueness philosophy to treat every word as a variable, with no intrinsic meaning or value, in the hope of revealing an underlying systems logic that can reconcile classical and modern physics and logic producing a Theory of Everything and Nothing. Merely using the assumption that everything ultimately appears to be paradoxical is the great equalizer that means it should be possible to extrapolate the systems logic from anything and what I'm writing can be described as primitive tribal potty humor and art work that meets the standards of modern academia and, hopefully, will reveal the underlying systems logic which mathematicians can then incorporate into Intuitionistic mathematics to produce a rigorous Theory of Everything in physics.
My being all too well aware that the most interesting things can grow out of manure, any feedback and questions are very welcome. :)
Essentially, I'm leveraging my experience with the Tao Te Ching and my own Contextual vagueness philosophy to treat every word as a variable, with no intrinsic meaning or value, in the hope of revealing an underlying systems logic that can reconcile classical and modern physics and logic producing a Theory of Everything and Nothing. Merely using the assumption that everything ultimately appears to be paradoxical is the great equalizer that means it should be possible to extrapolate the systems logic from anything and what I'm writing can be described as primitive tribal potty humor and art work that meets the standards of modern academia and, hopefully, will reveal the underlying systems logic which mathematicians can then incorporate into Intuitionistic mathematics to produce a rigorous Theory of Everything in physics.
My being all too well aware that the most interesting things can grow out of manure, any feedback and questions are very welcome. :)
Comments (46)
You'll forgive me if I find the idea of writing a book with such parameters as both absurd and futile.
As for there being no intrinsic meaning - well that statement too has no intrinsic meaning ;)
But I don't know why our existence is a paradox. That fact we exist doesn't seem to me to lead to a self-contradictory, logically unacceptable or senseless conclusion, unless we make certain additional assumptions (and I don't). Similarly, we need not take everything "on faith" unless, again, we make certain assumptions or engage in faux doubt.
Its a childhood obsession I never outgrew. :)
The contradiction is that we both exist and don't exist simultaneously because everything is apparently context dependent. The most common example I give of context dependence is that from the ground the earth can look flat, from orbit round, from far away its a dimensionless point, and from the other side of the universe its as if it had never existed. This reflects what is called the "Hubble Horizon" in physics which is fundamental to modern quantum field theory which is the basis of the accepted Standard Theory.
Everything being context dependent doesn't mean we can know for certain if it is actually a paradox. Proving the existence of a paradox is impossible according to classical logic and all we can do is infer the existence of one by examining the statistical evidence, which is exactly what quantum mechanics has demonstrated for the last sixty years. What a paradox of existence would display is a universal recursion in the law of identity where, ultimately, knowledge and awareness, fate and free will, would become indistinguishable. Like quantum mechanics, the implication is that our universe is acausal or magical and we simply have no choice but to decide for ourselves whether we have free will because the physical evidence would support both a fated and random universe.
So is this context dependant too? >:O Good - because then there is a context in which it is not true.
It's not a vague endeavor to produce a self-organizing systems logic that can reconcile quantum mechanics and Relativity. Its metaphoric logic which was first established 12,000 years ago and crucial to next generation Intuitionistic mathematics.
As for the irony of my own words having no meaning it hasn't escaped me. While the idea of a "humorous logic" might sound like a complete oxymoron the first quantifiable theory of humor has already established that humor involves perceptions of something having low entropy. In other words, its now possible to earn a doctorate in comedy and, this year, the US government finally admitted that have classified a few jokes as "Vital to the National Defense" and hinted that congress is investigating and, of course, they have no comment.
Systems logic like the one I am developing can have everything including their own logic go down the nearest convenient rabbit hole or toilet of your personal preference. For over half the planet beauty and humor, logic and bullshit, are indivisible "complimentary-opposites" and, for example, some of the poems I write are famous for being both normally quite beautiful and funny as hell when read in specific contexts.
Exactly, there is a context in which it is complete and utter B.S. just as knowing things like quantum mechanics will not help me teach a child how to tie their shoes.
Mathematics, not logic, is needed to reconcile QM and Relativity. Actually not even that, but rather a new, more general theory, expressed in mathematical form, out of which results, in specific cases, either QM or Relativity.
Quoting wuliheron
Well if it's just about giving people what they like (not necessarily what is true) - a business - then sure - there's a wide market for it.
Quoting wuliheron
So there is a context in which it is FALSE (not BS, but false - take note of this)? Can you specify the context please?
I'm probably too context dependent to understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that this is merely an example of the unsurprising fact that how an object appears to us will vary with our distance from the object and our location relative to the object. I don't see how this establishes we, or the object, both exist and don't exist, simultaneously.
Its not merely an effect of scale but, more fundamentally, one of juxtapositions. For example, the shade of a tree can save someone's life in the desert and, therefore, can be described as acausally becoming greater than any mere sum of its parts because the shade has no demonstrable identity independent from the light. People can argue all they want that its just utter nonsense and that the world must be causal, however, over fifty years of quantum mechanics indicate otherwise and now other branches of the science are beginning to support their conclusions as well.
In a paradox of existence everything, including the laws of physics, would organize around what's missing from this picture rather than merely obeying some sort of metaphysical rules and this is exactly what all the evidence is pointing towards. The visual centers of the brain, for example, are organized around searching for what's missing from this picture because analog logic rules the universe and shadows, for example, can be the fastest, easiest, and most reliable way to tell if an animal is moving.
The implication is that yin-yang dynamics apply because of a universal recursion in the law of identity which means, among other things, that its just as nonsensical to talk about light existing without a shadow as it is to talk about shadows existing without some sort of light to cast them. In fact, photons are instantly emitted and absorbed, experience isomorphic space-time, and otherwise have no known independent identity of their own merely conveying any energy and information with perfect fidelity which, just so happens to be the same description of a shadow.
Quite apart from the small fact that there aren't a lot of trees in the desert and the degree of change of temperature which the shadow of a tree in the desert causes is extremely unlikely to save anybody as it's dehydration that kills you, this is little more than romanticism. The fact that something proves to be convenient for a human doesn't suddenly transform its standing in the Universe. It was just a tree blocking part of the light before anyone crawled into the area. It's just a tree blocking part of the light afterward.
Not according to quantum mechanics and roughly sixty percent of the human race. You can complain all you want and argue otherwise all you want, but the evidence says you are wrong and the tree blocking the light has no meaning outside of the context of the shadow it casts anymore than the shadow has any meaning outside of the context of the light.
You should acquaint yourself with John Scotus Eriugena's Periphyseon
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/#3
Eriugena lived in the 9th c AD, a neo-platonist who utilised the ideas of the 'Celestial Hierarchy' from the writings of the anonymous monastic, 'pseudo-Dionysius'. 500 years later Duns Scotus was to overthrow the hierarchical nature of reality by declaring that 'the difference between God and creatures… is ultimately one of degree'. This has turned out to be a momentous, and in my understanding, calamitous development.
Quoting wuliheron
I have literally no idea what you are talking about!
I remember reading a piece by Jacob Klein that suggests otherwise, based on the early part of the Phelibus. There he divides up reality into three parts: 1) chaos and the limited, 2) the result of the mixing of these and 3) the cause of their mixing. The intellect forms the limited, which I think is basically the movement of the dialectic (where negativity shapes reality). For Plato the movement here is a becoming a generation.
He also has a bit of math in the dialogues, mostly seem to be Pythagorean not sure if they can be tied in to the Tao. I understand that Jacob Klein also has an excellently reviewed book on ancient math, I have not read it yet, more than I care to spend, and it may be too obtuse for me.
I've extrapolated about 185 out of 430 poems needed, but the rest will have to wait for the sequel to book I'm currently writing. I don't know if its ok to reference other websites here, but I've posted some of my work online elsewhere if anyone is interested and a simple search engine should turn it up. I'd post some of it here, but it contains a lot of cuss words required for the contextual vagueness and I don't know if that's permissible either. Anyway, if you saw my work you'd understand what I mean by dry. Its wild hippie dippy poetry and philosophy that might make some people blush, but that's one reason why the normal academic approach just can't do what I can.
Currently I'm reading Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Nan Huai-Chin. it contains a lot of references and allegories drawn from Chinese sources as Master Nan was an esteemed scholar of Chinese philosophy. Here is his photograph, he seems a magnetic character:
The Diamond Sutra is really good reading, but Buddhism is too metaphysical for me. Its the metaphors that interest me and not anyone's ideas about maya or whatever.
I read his major works extensively about twelve years ago. He maintains that it is impossible to become enlightened, or even to make real 'cultivation' progress without preserving the jing; that is without abstaining from ejaculation. This is a daoist idea based on extremely questionable assumptions I think.
Yes, when we read a conservative point of view, it is certainly based on extremely questionable assumptions! Monks have been celibate in almost all religions for thousands of years, but they must have just been idiots...
What progressives don't understand is that sex always has a spiritual side to it - there never is purely physical sex. Therefore you cannot pursue enlightenment and be engaged in sexual activities. Those who pursue enlightenment, or direct communion with God, give up their sexual pleasures. You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
The fact that abstaining from sex gives strength (and not only spiritual - but mental strength as well) is a fact, that anyone willing to be celibate can experience for themselves. Furthermore those who have been involved in too many sexual practices probably cannot ever attain enlightenment in this life regardless of what they do. That as far as I am concerned is no big loss though - us humans were never meant to attain enlightenment during our life. But those who are so short they cannot reach up to the grapes always tell everyone else that the grapes are sour.
Firstly, historically inaccurate. Secondly, circular argument. If your hidden definition of monk is celibate individual then it proves absolutely nothing that monks are celibate. Third, false attribution of motivation. Religious celibacy is not reserved to Gnostic religions nor for the purpose of enlightenment. Fourth, false authority. It is, of course, entirely possible that monks have indeed been idiots in this regard. There are certainly many in the Catholic Church who believe that celibate priests is and always was a truly stupid idea.
And that's before you go on to provide anecdotal evidence masquerading as fact and conjecture as observation. You are, of course, entitled to believe any old tosh you want but in a philosophy forum it requires a much higher standard of justification than this!
Any reference for this please?
Quoting Barry Etheridge
It's not meant to be an argument. I'm not mounting an argument there - merely making a point. You should know better than just to cite a few fallacies. In the wrong context citing a fallacy is proof only of your lack of ability in distinguishing a fact from an argument.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
It is a fact that monks have been required to be celibate in almost all religions - including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, etc. . You should read about the requirements for monks perhaps in different religions before talking such nonsense. Really don't shame yourself like this.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
I never stated this was the only motivation.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
Right monks are idiots to be celibate because it is stupid for priests to be celibate - that makes great sense >:O
Monks aren't priests. The two of them have entirely different functions. Read up on it before coming here with such arrogance. In fact, I agree that priests (or at least most of them) shouldn't be celibate. In fact they probably should marry.
1. Almost all religions have required monks to be celibate - do you deny this? Of course you don't, because we both know what the truth is. Otherwise let's do it like in court. "Monks in almost all religions have been required to be celibate" - is that a true statement, or a false statement?
2. Thinking monks should be celibate does not entail priests should be celibate.
3. I never claimed the only reason to be celibate is spiritual enlightenment, nor that only monks should be interested in celibacy. I live a celibate lifestyle for the moment, and I'm not a monk, nor do I plan to ever be one. Nor am I interested in achieving spiritual enlightenment in this life for that matter.
4. Circular argument - what argument? There was no argument. Merely pointing to a fact that almost all monks have been required to be celibate. Then I proceeded to say that if someone thinks this is wrong, they implicitly think that almost all monks have been mistaken - thus that they were idiots. There's nothing absurd or circular about this. Contrary to your silly caricature, I haven't turned this into a sufficient reason to suggest that John and people like him are necessarily wrong. It's suggestive of the fact that they are wrong - that much is certain - but it's not establishing this with 100% certainty, the way a true syllogism would.
5. You never bother to give sources for your counterfactual claims. My sources are very clear - just look at the teachings of literarily all religions of the past. Very simple.
But of course, your prefer to continue in your shamelessness in order to push your agenda. And yes - ad hominem so soon, because that is the only possible answer to someone who doesn't address the points, and yet insists that they are right.
As far as it appears, your foundational assumptions are self-contradictory. Namely "everything is context dependent" is self-contradictory. To wit:
Is there a context in which "everything is context dependent" is false?
If the answer is yes, then we have reached a contradiction - namely not everything is context dependent. If the answer is "no", then we're back in the real game of deciding and debating what is really true, and what isn't context dependent. And in this real game, your assertion will be just one of many - one which will be impossible to grant without contradiction.
Given that we obviously do exist (whatever it is we are doing, that is what we call existing, since that's how we use the word - haven't you READ Wittgenstein?), you might want to attempt to resolve this contradiction by examining instead the premise that everything is "apparently" context dependant. You might find the paradox resolved. A paradox is no little thing, it is a serious shortcoming of our human logic in understanding the deeper logic of the universe. Be careful how you throw the term around if you want to get at anything true.
That's faulty reasoning: if the answer is "no", then there is no need to decide about "what is really true, and what isn't context dependent" because if the answer is "no", then there is no context in which "everything is context dependent is false", and thus there is no possible separation between "what is really true" and its context-dependence; i.e. there is nothing that isn't context dependent, including what is really true.