False & True Philosophical Utopias...

(Anyone wishing to follow these dabates as they take place: cleck here)(click image for larger view)

“Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself," that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism." C.S. Peirce

The above quote is the central premises of explanation of my graphic, in my first post this month. If one studies the depth of Peirce’s statements related to my graphic, the truths are represented by the three center circles, which can actually be the three conceptual/perceptual and non-perceptual selves, as one fades, one is present ‘I’/being, and the third is the self “coming into life in the flow of time”. The reason I’ve chosen conflexivity is I didn’t feel the present terms actually covered all the actions taking place in our mental processes. Others have chosen the words, ‘Abduction’, ‘Reflexivity’ and ‘Reflexive Control’, but it’s more than a mere reflexive system__The deepest mind states are a truly conflexive process. By conflexivity, I mean, as an analogy, say an epiphany, which is a split second lucid vision into the super-consciousness of one’s own mind, or as some would believe, into the super-consciousness of all minds or even a universal mind. The reason I choose ‘con-’ is it has the meaning, when added to ‘flexivity’, of being two or many processes in one, especially as relates to a small split second’s epiphany, having the massive power of vision to reveal such a large amount of information, it’s often over-whelming to retrieve at that moment. It may take years or even decades to understand the entire meaning of such epiphanies, as I’m sure many of you have experienced, and for this reason and the explanation’s complexity, I’ve chosen the word conflexivity. If one looks up ‘con’ in the online etymology dictionary at; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=con&searchmode=none one will quickly see the utility of the many meanings, which suits my purpose well, as I intend, over the next 6 months, to relay an entire system of philosophy, by a method I’ll later explain. For now, it’ll be from a universal standpoint of eclectic genericity. By using a general method, it allows me to take in all the breadth of universal facts and beliefs, and at the same time allows a perspective of the depths of particular facts and individual beliefs, desires, habits and ambitions…

So as not to become bogged down in constant extreme debates between others varied views and ideas, and my own, I’ll be responding with general impersonal expositions of my ideas, as loosely relates to others’ ideas. My methods have their main foundations in the early Jains, Nyaya, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Eudoxus, Nicomachus, Archimedes, Apollonius, A.Biruni, Avicenna/Ibn Sina, A.Magnus, F.Bacon, Boole, De Morgan, W.Clifford, A.Schopenhauer, C.S.Peirce, T.Veblen, W.Durant and L.Kolakowski. The three I’m most impressed with are Ibn Sina, C.S.Peirce and L.Kolakowski, as all three offer eclectic universal genericity perspectives. Both Ibn Sina and C.S.Peirce offered complete philosophical systems, including all views of human thought, i.e., Logic, Physics, Metaphysics, Spiritism and complete category systems to boot. These two are the only ones who offered all of human thought in one person, and respected all aspects of these diverse mentalities of history, therefore I have a great deal of respect for them, especially as offering a great helping hand to unite the many dis-united schools of thought, mentalities and ideas of our present ‘crazy’ world.

As to the ‘False & True Philosophical Utopias’, this will be an ongoing discussion about “The Mentalities of Histories” as Kolakowski has named them. This ‘mentalities’ has far greater conceptual representational power than say, ‘The History of Ideas’, ‘The Intellectual History of Eras’ or ‘The History of Concepts’, as ‘The History of Mentalities’ can represent anything from the smallest personal individual in depth idea, to the largest universal open conceptual ideas of the planet’s evolutional mental state, as expressed by people such as P.T de Chardin, E.Schrodinger, D.Bohm and even J.Lovelock. I intend to discuss most all the false utopias of leftists and rightists, i.e., Marxism, socialism, communism, the Heinz 57 totalitarianisms, the Heinz 57 capitalisms and anything else that comes up as relates to social philosophy, social justice and a possible evolution to a true state of pure liberty, based on the complete ‘Inversity’ of present state law system understandings, through full explanations of what ‘Inverse Greed’ truly consists of. This may sound like a tall order, but I assure you I have simplified the process greatly over the last two years, by graphing, tabling and charting these processes and methods with an analogical/visual representation that’ll become obvious as we progress. I’ve named my entire philosophical system ‘Aneology’, which means ‘One Visual Logic…’

Not to make this post any longer, I’ll end here for now…

P.S.
The Q, C, and X, as represented above stand for Q = quantum states(though all 3 are quantum change states), C = biological cells, and X = foreign exchange markets, as so emplaced. These letters can be replaced to represent all central actions of brain/mind states, or other states of complexity of the nations' systems and world systems, where complexities yet unsolved exist. In other words I could have the letters, M = minds, P = photons, and C = concepts, etc., etc. Just as in all algebras, the letters are interchangable as per the topics of discussions proceed. As per the drawing's box informations, they are all chiralling cycloid motions of photons, as photons are the family of bosons, which allow super-positioning/cloning, etc., as per Einstein, which allows concepts to merge from lesser states to greater vision states, then fade to emplaced memory states. Future diagrams and explanations of the mechanics will form the entire picture of a working brain/mind model and possible and necessary probable world mechanics of...

The reason foreign exchange is included is it represents one of the largest areas of incomplete complexity(and many others will be shown in future posts), similar or symmetrical, information wise, as that of deep brain/mind mechanics of hypotheses formations, and possibly a clearer method of future explanations, since any internal mind states, not completely understood, can more easily be represented by symmetrical relationships of external real world states(I'm drawing the symmetries of actions from E.Noether and her statements of physical states in relation to the symmetries of the laws of physics and nature, and the required conditions of her theorems_She's one of our most important global resources of unifying thought). Just as morality can not be agreed to internally(the epistemic dilemma of 'free will and responsibility'), other than our individual prejudices learned by age 18, as per Nietzsche, this same internal moral state can be understood through its symmetrical external relationship of the desires, ambitions and habits of entire communities' esthetic liberty actions, as represented by the real world accomplishments we see around us, which actually exists by the original moral desires and ambitions of individual choices, and this way morality is actually externally/objectively, scientifically measurable_over time. As an example, we all enjoy living in comfortable houses, as per living in cold, damp caves_that's a moral/happiness personal choice we all make. Though some may not see it as a moral choice, one only has to think about the more compassionate condition of wife and children's comfort of house compared to cave, then one sees the moral/happiness implications. This will also be given through future graphs, tables and graphics, with their related explanations, and showing how to measure not only morality, but a closing of many of philosophy's epistemic and ontological gaps...

Hope that helps...

And as per logic of, logic simply tells us the true and false condition states of our reasoning, and no more, i.e., reason asks/contemplates the questions/doubts, and logic answers the condition states of... Of course, many conflate logic states with Aristotle's syllogistic 3 laws of logic__I use Ibn Sina's, Boole's, Lobachevsky's, Grassmann's, De Morgan's, Clifford's, Peirce's and Vasiliev's much extended logics, over Aristotle's less extensive reasonings...