181
New Theories / Just Curious
« on: 28/04/2006 19:38:51 »
This is from a handout in my philosophy class:
Awareness = 1- (Unique Responses / Total Responses)
This formula is based on the assumption that in any question asked, if all the people give the same answer, then the answer is generally agreed upon and the responders are well aware of the information needed to correctly answer the question. Exceptions will be mentioned. If the number of unique perspectives to an answer of a particular question is greater than one, then the certainty of the answer deviates more and more as the number of unique perspectives increase. A huge amount of unique perspectives resembles general disarray when it comes to having the information required to correctly answer a given question. The specific answers are of no importance, just the number of unique perspectives to an answer, and the greater the number of responders the more effective the reading. Any question can be asked, but as will soon be seen, the most significant are the ones that require knowledge of the Absolute to correctly answer them. An interesting question is what if there is only one responder. In such a case, regardless of whether the person is correct or incorrect, there is only one unique perspective. Thus A = 1-(1/1) = 0. This is intriguing, what could this mean? Essentially, this is saying that without anyone to compare oneself to, how could one assign themselves an absolute character? This is like a person considering themselves to be strong while there being no one who can be considered to be weak. Humans being social creatures build a relative personality or Self based on their immediate environment. So it can be said that one is not aware of the concept of awareness thus one certainly cannot be aware; therefore A=0. Another possible measurement might be the efficiency of a system, Es = (Total Responses) / (Total # of People in System). The awareness equation depends on the comprehension of the concepts of the Relative and the Absolute, if one wishes for an accurate reading. The following are scenarios of potentially incorrect readings:
1) A Fascist System: This is the most obvious because in such a scenario, a person's perspective on any given topic would almost solely depend on the perspective of the whole of the fascist system. Thus, in such a situation, the awareness level would be extremely high even though, in actuality, the awareness level is extremely low with almost no thought process. This is especially true when considering the forceful discouragement of self-development enforced in such a system.
2) A system encouraging of self-development: It is not possible to be certain of such a system's existence in the present. It certainly isn't the Euro-American System, at least not completely. However, following the assumption that such an ideal system does in fact exist; what could cause an incorrect reading? Bluntly put, the correct answer to the question asked must require knowledge of the Absolute, lest it be a reading neither timeless nor of any significant/absolute value. A lack of understanding of the Relative and the Absolute may be complemented by the question of why it is favorable to attain a reading of absolute value over a reading of relative value. Thus the Relative and the Absolute must be discussed.
From these two examples, it can be seen that in order to attain an accurate reading, both the System and the question must be carefully considered. To refine this, it can be said that both the System and the question are human creations and are thus relative. So again, it is a matter of understanding the Relative and the Absolute.
First, from The Art of War, the concept of Tao is introduced. Tao, in its most quintessential sense and the way I perceive it to be, is the Nature of Things. It is the natural flow of things, it is logical fate. It is a very interesting concept that can be readily used to attempt to understand equally interesting concepts of the Relative and the Absolute.
In the book it has been said time and time again that the skilled must know Tao. For one to say such a thing implies an incomplete understanding of Tao. From the manner in which it's applied in the book; Tao is defined such that the process of knowing Tao cannot be applied to the Relative. As intellectually significant as the Sun Tzu is, its lack of comprehension of the Relative and the Absolute offers an incomplete understanding of Tao and its applications.
The Tao of driving a car is the series of events, situations, objects and such synonyms relating to driving a car. To simply state "The Tao of driving a car" neither implies the knowledge in such an act nor the cognitive process in anyway. To say that one knows the Tao of driving a car essentially translates to one knows the series of events, situations, objects and such synonyms relating to driving a car. Such a statement neither makes any logical sense nor provides for a logical possibility. If such a statement were possible, it would mean that a person knowing the Tao of driving a car would always find favorable accommodations; whether it is consistently avoiding an imminent car crash or consistently avoiding traffic jams. How can such a possibility be logically true when in fact driving a car clearly depends on and can be effected by so many factors not explicitly agreed upon as relating to driving a car? Things such as a bridge blowing up while driving over it or a terrorist attack having occurred near the vicinity of a route that is commonly taken have apparently nothing to do with the condition of driving a car and yet can have profound implications on the quality/favorability of the drive. Thus such a statement makes no logical sense because the process of identifying events, situations, objects and related synonyms that describe a particular condition (such as driving a car) is purely subjective. The reason that such a statement doesn�t provide for a logical possibility is because provided that a persons knows the Tao of driving a car that essentially means every situation thrown at them can be turned into their favor while driving a car. However, no matter how much concentration a human being can possibly put into driving a car, it is still impossible for them to know of an imminent bridge collapse and/or an imminent terrorist attack; either of which are beyond their control and would be quite unfavorable to anyone, possibly resulting in injury or death.
Thus it can be seen that the condition of driving a car is related to and can be affected by many unpredictable external factors. So from this example it can be seen that the condition of driving a car is relative. Now the statement can be made that it is not possible to know the Tao of something that is merely relative without knowing the Tao of the Absolute. From the equation which calculates awareness level, it can be gathered that since it is clearly (practically speaking) impossible for an awareness level to equal 1 (due to the fact that for such a case to be possible, it would mean that everyone in the system being tested knows the Absolute and thus knows all the Relative) an absolute cannot be agreed upon and so is not known. Therefore, if the Absolute is not known, it is not possible to know the Tao of the Absolute, thus it is not possible to know the Tao of the Relative.
Since the Tao of, well, anything cannot be known, (or it can be said, more generally and to the point, one cannot know Tao) whether being Tao of the Relative or Tao of the Absolute, what can be done with these three concepts? Well the cognitive process that I generally follow consists of observation > analization > comprehension. I refer to comprehension as the "holy grail". The complete cognitive process may be observe > analyze > comprehend > know, but since the impossibility of knowing the Relative has been derived, it has been excluded in the general cognitive process.
Observation is the curiosity of children.
Analization is the quality of a growing child.
Comprehension is a fully grown adult human.
Comprehension is about the greatest achievement that any normal human can attempt to achieve. Thus the "holy grail". So it can be said that it is possible to comprehend Tao of the Relative but not know it, thus implying the possibility of comprehending Tao of the Absolute, yet now knowing it.
Certain supposed contradictions need to be addressed. If Tao of the Absolute cannot be known, then one can argue that they know that if they drop an object on earth, it will most certainly fall towards the ground. How can such an apparent contradiction be accounted for? When looking at any scientific field or any such fields of work, one can find many variable constants. Some examples are the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity, and the universal gas constant. These are, thus, obviously things not of a single whole, but rather part of a larger whole, that indeed is absolute. What does this mean? When one considers the implied singular meaning of the Absolute, it has a connotation of a single whole, something well beyond our comprehension and in the realm of knowing, that is both single and infinite; as may be derived from its sense of self-sustenance and independence. This concept seems contradictory when concepts such as gravity are concerned. It is true that gravity is an absolute, but not the kind when the word absolute is used by itself. When the concept of absolution is applied to the concept of gravity, the sense of a single whole is lost. In such a case gravity is part of a single whole rather that being a single whole from without it self. In other words, the concept of gravity is a specific component absolute of a single whole absolute, as though being part of a huge web of component absolutes comprising the single whole absolute. Examples of other component absolutes may include weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force, matter and time (if it exists). Since one knows that when an object is dropped off from the ground beneath, it will certainly fall downwards (due to the component absolute gravity), one may conclude that they know the Tao of a component absolute, namely gravity, all the while recognizing their inability to know the Tao of the single whole absolute. This concept logically entails that certain aspects of a relative condition, based on component absolutes can in fact be known but it is not at all an exact science. Since the identification of a relative condition is purely subjective, it is not possible for any component absolute to entail any objective array of relative conditions that maybe specific to the component absolute.
Consider the following. A person throws a ball in the air; such a condition is relative because the result of such a situation can be affected by an infinite number of random events. However, based on the component absolute gravity, the constant pull of everything towards the earth is guaranteed. Thus even if an atomic bomb explodes right underneath the person and the ball the instant of the throw, it can still be known for a fact that all the pieces of the person and the ball will fall back to earth because such a condition, although may itself be a complement to another relative one, is based on a component absolute. In summary, the Absolute cannot be known; therefore the Relative cannot be made known unless they are based on a component absolute.
Tao is the Nature of Things. The Absolute is the single whole. To know Tao is to know the Absolute, the concepts are one in the same. One cannot know Tao, just as one cannot know the Absolute. One can comprehend Tao, just as one can comprehend the Absolute. The Absolute is single, static, and whole, Tao is everywhere, moving and creating a natural flow; it's the natural flow of things. The two work together to form the very vision before each and every one of us.
To know the Absolute or Tao is to be ultimate, but to comprehend them is to be elite. To comprehend the Absolute is to walk just below the Heavens; to comprehend Tao is to walk well above the immediate. Thus comprehension; the "holy grail".
So the concept of logical fate is introduced. Quintessentially, logical fate is just a derivation of Tao. So what is fate? It may generally be agreed upon that fate (assuming one believes in the concept apparently) is simply a series of events that are bound to happen and can also be stated as predetermined fate to be more specific. So logical fate, as one may assume, is a logical interpretation of the concept of fate. If Tao is the natural flow of things, then Tao quite literally IS the fate of everyone. Through an understanding of Tao however, it has already been determined that it�s possible to observe, analyze and comprehend Tao. That being the case, it is possible, using the recently adopted relationship, to state that it is also possible to observe, analyze and comprehend fate. So logical fate essentially means the fate that is revealed to one who can comprehend Tao. Thus although Tao is the fate of the uncomprehending, (thus the uncomprehending are fated to forever delve in the Relative) comprehending Tao allows one to comprehend fate, (and so the concept of logical fate) and also enables one to effectively change fate through comprehension.
The most direct description of logical fate is this: Tao is the natural flow of things, if one comprehends Tao then one comprehends the natural flow of things which may otherwise be referred to as fate, or what is fated to occur in the nature flow of things. Thus when one is able to comprehend the natural flow of things, they may begin to direct themselves to flow with Tao rather then against it, to reduce friction and become steadfast. This is changing fate, or during a state of comprehension of Tao and as I would call it, logical fate; to limit the Relative and to push oneself towards the Absolute. What greater purpose can a human have?
I'm simply curious what anyone here thinks about this, if anything at all.
Awareness = 1- (Unique Responses / Total Responses)
This formula is based on the assumption that in any question asked, if all the people give the same answer, then the answer is generally agreed upon and the responders are well aware of the information needed to correctly answer the question. Exceptions will be mentioned. If the number of unique perspectives to an answer of a particular question is greater than one, then the certainty of the answer deviates more and more as the number of unique perspectives increase. A huge amount of unique perspectives resembles general disarray when it comes to having the information required to correctly answer a given question. The specific answers are of no importance, just the number of unique perspectives to an answer, and the greater the number of responders the more effective the reading. Any question can be asked, but as will soon be seen, the most significant are the ones that require knowledge of the Absolute to correctly answer them. An interesting question is what if there is only one responder. In such a case, regardless of whether the person is correct or incorrect, there is only one unique perspective. Thus A = 1-(1/1) = 0. This is intriguing, what could this mean? Essentially, this is saying that without anyone to compare oneself to, how could one assign themselves an absolute character? This is like a person considering themselves to be strong while there being no one who can be considered to be weak. Humans being social creatures build a relative personality or Self based on their immediate environment. So it can be said that one is not aware of the concept of awareness thus one certainly cannot be aware; therefore A=0. Another possible measurement might be the efficiency of a system, Es = (Total Responses) / (Total # of People in System). The awareness equation depends on the comprehension of the concepts of the Relative and the Absolute, if one wishes for an accurate reading. The following are scenarios of potentially incorrect readings:
1) A Fascist System: This is the most obvious because in such a scenario, a person's perspective on any given topic would almost solely depend on the perspective of the whole of the fascist system. Thus, in such a situation, the awareness level would be extremely high even though, in actuality, the awareness level is extremely low with almost no thought process. This is especially true when considering the forceful discouragement of self-development enforced in such a system.
2) A system encouraging of self-development: It is not possible to be certain of such a system's existence in the present. It certainly isn't the Euro-American System, at least not completely. However, following the assumption that such an ideal system does in fact exist; what could cause an incorrect reading? Bluntly put, the correct answer to the question asked must require knowledge of the Absolute, lest it be a reading neither timeless nor of any significant/absolute value. A lack of understanding of the Relative and the Absolute may be complemented by the question of why it is favorable to attain a reading of absolute value over a reading of relative value. Thus the Relative and the Absolute must be discussed.
From these two examples, it can be seen that in order to attain an accurate reading, both the System and the question must be carefully considered. To refine this, it can be said that both the System and the question are human creations and are thus relative. So again, it is a matter of understanding the Relative and the Absolute.
First, from The Art of War, the concept of Tao is introduced. Tao, in its most quintessential sense and the way I perceive it to be, is the Nature of Things. It is the natural flow of things, it is logical fate. It is a very interesting concept that can be readily used to attempt to understand equally interesting concepts of the Relative and the Absolute.
In the book it has been said time and time again that the skilled must know Tao. For one to say such a thing implies an incomplete understanding of Tao. From the manner in which it's applied in the book; Tao is defined such that the process of knowing Tao cannot be applied to the Relative. As intellectually significant as the Sun Tzu is, its lack of comprehension of the Relative and the Absolute offers an incomplete understanding of Tao and its applications.
The Tao of driving a car is the series of events, situations, objects and such synonyms relating to driving a car. To simply state "The Tao of driving a car" neither implies the knowledge in such an act nor the cognitive process in anyway. To say that one knows the Tao of driving a car essentially translates to one knows the series of events, situations, objects and such synonyms relating to driving a car. Such a statement neither makes any logical sense nor provides for a logical possibility. If such a statement were possible, it would mean that a person knowing the Tao of driving a car would always find favorable accommodations; whether it is consistently avoiding an imminent car crash or consistently avoiding traffic jams. How can such a possibility be logically true when in fact driving a car clearly depends on and can be effected by so many factors not explicitly agreed upon as relating to driving a car? Things such as a bridge blowing up while driving over it or a terrorist attack having occurred near the vicinity of a route that is commonly taken have apparently nothing to do with the condition of driving a car and yet can have profound implications on the quality/favorability of the drive. Thus such a statement makes no logical sense because the process of identifying events, situations, objects and related synonyms that describe a particular condition (such as driving a car) is purely subjective. The reason that such a statement doesn�t provide for a logical possibility is because provided that a persons knows the Tao of driving a car that essentially means every situation thrown at them can be turned into their favor while driving a car. However, no matter how much concentration a human being can possibly put into driving a car, it is still impossible for them to know of an imminent bridge collapse and/or an imminent terrorist attack; either of which are beyond their control and would be quite unfavorable to anyone, possibly resulting in injury or death.
Thus it can be seen that the condition of driving a car is related to and can be affected by many unpredictable external factors. So from this example it can be seen that the condition of driving a car is relative. Now the statement can be made that it is not possible to know the Tao of something that is merely relative without knowing the Tao of the Absolute. From the equation which calculates awareness level, it can be gathered that since it is clearly (practically speaking) impossible for an awareness level to equal 1 (due to the fact that for such a case to be possible, it would mean that everyone in the system being tested knows the Absolute and thus knows all the Relative) an absolute cannot be agreed upon and so is not known. Therefore, if the Absolute is not known, it is not possible to know the Tao of the Absolute, thus it is not possible to know the Tao of the Relative.
Since the Tao of, well, anything cannot be known, (or it can be said, more generally and to the point, one cannot know Tao) whether being Tao of the Relative or Tao of the Absolute, what can be done with these three concepts? Well the cognitive process that I generally follow consists of observation > analization > comprehension. I refer to comprehension as the "holy grail". The complete cognitive process may be observe > analyze > comprehend > know, but since the impossibility of knowing the Relative has been derived, it has been excluded in the general cognitive process.
Observation is the curiosity of children.
Analization is the quality of a growing child.
Comprehension is a fully grown adult human.
Comprehension is about the greatest achievement that any normal human can attempt to achieve. Thus the "holy grail". So it can be said that it is possible to comprehend Tao of the Relative but not know it, thus implying the possibility of comprehending Tao of the Absolute, yet now knowing it.
Certain supposed contradictions need to be addressed. If Tao of the Absolute cannot be known, then one can argue that they know that if they drop an object on earth, it will most certainly fall towards the ground. How can such an apparent contradiction be accounted for? When looking at any scientific field or any such fields of work, one can find many variable constants. Some examples are the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity, and the universal gas constant. These are, thus, obviously things not of a single whole, but rather part of a larger whole, that indeed is absolute. What does this mean? When one considers the implied singular meaning of the Absolute, it has a connotation of a single whole, something well beyond our comprehension and in the realm of knowing, that is both single and infinite; as may be derived from its sense of self-sustenance and independence. This concept seems contradictory when concepts such as gravity are concerned. It is true that gravity is an absolute, but not the kind when the word absolute is used by itself. When the concept of absolution is applied to the concept of gravity, the sense of a single whole is lost. In such a case gravity is part of a single whole rather that being a single whole from without it self. In other words, the concept of gravity is a specific component absolute of a single whole absolute, as though being part of a huge web of component absolutes comprising the single whole absolute. Examples of other component absolutes may include weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force, matter and time (if it exists). Since one knows that when an object is dropped off from the ground beneath, it will certainly fall downwards (due to the component absolute gravity), one may conclude that they know the Tao of a component absolute, namely gravity, all the while recognizing their inability to know the Tao of the single whole absolute. This concept logically entails that certain aspects of a relative condition, based on component absolutes can in fact be known but it is not at all an exact science. Since the identification of a relative condition is purely subjective, it is not possible for any component absolute to entail any objective array of relative conditions that maybe specific to the component absolute.
Consider the following. A person throws a ball in the air; such a condition is relative because the result of such a situation can be affected by an infinite number of random events. However, based on the component absolute gravity, the constant pull of everything towards the earth is guaranteed. Thus even if an atomic bomb explodes right underneath the person and the ball the instant of the throw, it can still be known for a fact that all the pieces of the person and the ball will fall back to earth because such a condition, although may itself be a complement to another relative one, is based on a component absolute. In summary, the Absolute cannot be known; therefore the Relative cannot be made known unless they are based on a component absolute.
Tao is the Nature of Things. The Absolute is the single whole. To know Tao is to know the Absolute, the concepts are one in the same. One cannot know Tao, just as one cannot know the Absolute. One can comprehend Tao, just as one can comprehend the Absolute. The Absolute is single, static, and whole, Tao is everywhere, moving and creating a natural flow; it's the natural flow of things. The two work together to form the very vision before each and every one of us.
To know the Absolute or Tao is to be ultimate, but to comprehend them is to be elite. To comprehend the Absolute is to walk just below the Heavens; to comprehend Tao is to walk well above the immediate. Thus comprehension; the "holy grail".
So the concept of logical fate is introduced. Quintessentially, logical fate is just a derivation of Tao. So what is fate? It may generally be agreed upon that fate (assuming one believes in the concept apparently) is simply a series of events that are bound to happen and can also be stated as predetermined fate to be more specific. So logical fate, as one may assume, is a logical interpretation of the concept of fate. If Tao is the natural flow of things, then Tao quite literally IS the fate of everyone. Through an understanding of Tao however, it has already been determined that it�s possible to observe, analyze and comprehend Tao. That being the case, it is possible, using the recently adopted relationship, to state that it is also possible to observe, analyze and comprehend fate. So logical fate essentially means the fate that is revealed to one who can comprehend Tao. Thus although Tao is the fate of the uncomprehending, (thus the uncomprehending are fated to forever delve in the Relative) comprehending Tao allows one to comprehend fate, (and so the concept of logical fate) and also enables one to effectively change fate through comprehension.
The most direct description of logical fate is this: Tao is the natural flow of things, if one comprehends Tao then one comprehends the natural flow of things which may otherwise be referred to as fate, or what is fated to occur in the nature flow of things. Thus when one is able to comprehend the natural flow of things, they may begin to direct themselves to flow with Tao rather then against it, to reduce friction and become steadfast. This is changing fate, or during a state of comprehension of Tao and as I would call it, logical fate; to limit the Relative and to push oneself towards the Absolute. What greater purpose can a human have?
I'm simply curious what anyone here thinks about this, if anything at all.