Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Actionable Ideas:

Actionable Ideas:
1st This is the philosopher I follow most; C.S. Peirce, bar none. No matter how many times I read the more recent others, their own writings always refer back to something more basic in Peirce 

Imo, Peirce is still the most complete and factually useful philosopher of all history’s philosophers, especially and mainly since he’s a logician as well as a scientist in many other fields, including the complex maths. I find more methods and methodologies what philosophy is truly about - in Peirce than all the others put together, since he single-handedly created more of his own than any ‘one’ other, and also studied, recorded and used theirs as well, while giving full credit to them all, making him the most complete index of the wisest men on Earth. So, if you want tools for investigation of ideas, it’s impossible to top Peirce in toto, imo.

My Basic Methods Synopsis: 

I seriously don’t think we can do successful science of philosophy, philosophy of science, or even a lot of philosophy proper, without a sound methodological category articulation, definition and model system, to begin with -- Thus, I advocate using Peirce’s system of many systems, as the best, and most useful modern system interpretation of methodological category articulation, definition and model philosophy possible -- It’s imo, the most complete architectonic philosophical system of noumenal-epistemic-ontolic-phenomenolic-physics and science, that exists -- Why…? Because; It covers every subject under the sun -- including the 1st philosophy of metaphysics, as a general 1st descriptor of ideas…

I’ll start with a provocative “title-assertion” and a more serious quote, then state what philosophy means to me, and generally how I use it.

A Question of Philosophical-Political Involvement: - “Is there a way not to become polarized, if you enter this Deep State Cave…?” (As I see all who enter, are polar brainwashed into its many wrong-headed preceptions, ideologies and dogmas)

C.S. Peirce says: Quote:
 “The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate
 of PERCEPTION and make their exit at the gate of PURPOSIVE ACTION;
 and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates
 is to be ARRESTED as unauthorized by REASON.”

(Peirce’s quote is a general finite logical scientific language editor, to edit the wheat from the chaff. I don’t think any successful philosophy can be done, without doing this - 1st, especially as to basic definitions and meanings.)

Now; “What does philosophy mean to me?” I’ve worked all my life with a single goal in mind - To develop ideas and systems worthy of the possibility of changing the laws of the nation and possibly even the world - where needs be, to be more amenable to the yearnings of myself; and to those of other people. So, I asked myself; “What was my initial essential question?” 

And that was; Where was I to find the exact information I would need to accomplish my goals, in this massive Universal mountain of information? -- My grandfather had years before suggested - Money, Law & Logic were key - but, where was I to accurately find all this information I was seeking? After thinking, asking, investigating and long years of studies, I realized philosophy offered the areas, with the most basic, deep, and far-reaching, information I was looking for.

Then the quest began in earnest - slogging through the many, many philosophers, historians, logicians, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians and economists, I finally found all the fundamental answers I was initially looking for about money, law, logic and mathematics - and just exactly how philosophy was needed to explain it all successfully. That took a solid twenty years, plus another twenty years filtering that massive mountain of thoughts and ideas into facts and proofs, I could be satisfied with. I found most of the information in the many histories of philosophy I studied, so the respect I have for it is huge, even though my attitude can be less than desired, at times, please take me with a grain of salt.

To me, philosophy is a means to an end - an end (meaning effects/conclusions) of an idea - an end (solution) of a problem - application to the solution to the ends of history, per say - solutions to the historical, political, legal and economic problems of Earth (past, present and future, triadically teleologically analyzed) - or just plain ol’ general methods and methodologies applied to all sorts of (Quote:) “finite understanding” realities. Now, notice I’ve quoted and italicized the “finite understanding”, as I don’t intend to mean this applies to any of the private “talismanic language uses”, as per the many mythic, mystic and boutique languages available to non-scientists - As I mean this to apply to the finite scientific understanding only, the only understanding I accept as valid. (holler all you want) I purposely limit it to the “finite understanding”, as this is what the logic, maths and measurements of philosophy and science have taught me to do, and the main idea I like most about philosophy is its offering of such powerful tools for the careful and precise discrimination of essential and intelligent thought, in all areas of thought, and when properly and fully applied, give amazing factual and proof results, in the fields the tools are accurately applied to, as far as I’m concerned. Historically, when fully used, “I” find nothing missing. I know others will strongly disagree with this.

A Quoted Question: "Is a grand unified theory of information possible?"
Imo, If you were to simply choose to build this already mentioned, powerful finite language clarification editor quote of Charles Sanders Peirce, into your own full-blown conceptual, logical, finite quantification, path grounding system, I have no doubt, you could create the most true, honest and accurate personal self-interpreter possible -- That's how important I feel it is; AGAIN, QUOTE: “The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of PERCEPTION and make their exit at the gate of PURPOSIVE ACTION; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be ARRESTED as unauthorized by REASON...” 

Imo, nothing of philosophy, humanism and/or science is more analytically important and useful...

Finally: A general analyses of the possible and impossible separations, integrations and uses of all of these mentioned methods, used by way of the editing methods also mentioned above, should go a long way toward greatly assisting in the creation and institution of new ideas and possible methods of creating new laws to resolve some of the major problems facing our world, today, when fully integrated with the scientific methods and methodologies philosophy truly offers, if people would but pay close attention, to the exactness she offers. Imo; “We can’t just waddle out our ideas without having full and complete methods of achieving our goals of the real political, legal and social changes so sorely needed…”

 I simply ask; Please use many methods of deep thought, before you choose any serious actions. And, that’s what philosophy, in a short note, truly means to me”. Thank you. 


The End
Inline image 1

Some of the world’s ‘best’ universal/international, aggregate logical minds this author owes a great debt to __ Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Archytas, Eudoxus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, Ibn Al-HaythamAl-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicholas De Cusa, Juan Vives, John Wallis, Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Baruch Spinoza, Christiaan Huygens, Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibnitz, Thomas Reid, Alexander Baumgarten, Moses Mendelssohn, Immanuel Kant, George Washington, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, Giambattista Vico, Bernard Bolzano, Tom Paine, Évariste Galois, William Whewell, Auguste Comte, J.C. Bose, S.W. Hamilton, W.R. Hamilton, George Boole, Augustus  De Morgan, William K. Clifford, Alexander Bain, William Stanley Jevons, R.H. Lotze, Charles S. Peirce, Thorsten Veblen, William Minto, Mark Twain, Christine Ladd-Franklin, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Max H. Fisch, S.N. Bose, Jan Lukasiewicz, J.M. Keynes, Arthur Prior, Kurt GÖdel, Mikhail Bakhtin, Clarence I. Lewis, Alfred Tarski, John Wheeler, Joseph Ransdell, Roderick Chisholm, Nathan Houser, Patrick Coppock, Phyllis Chiasson, Herbert Feigl, Hans Jonas, Peter McLaughlin, Nicholas Rescher, Jay Zeman, James R. Wible, John F. Sowa, K.O. Apel, Irving Anellis, Sami Paavola, T.L. Short, Joseph Brent, Fernando Zalamea, Ahti Pietarinen, Susan Haack, Albert Casullo, Joseph L. Esposito, Theodora Achourioti, and Igor Naletov, Daniel Andler, Maria Chiara, Giorgio Agamben, Lucianno Floridi, etc.…(just a short list)

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possibles of premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Understanding:

As I approach the understanding of myself and others, I must ask myself what I truly and honestly know. Do I know myself well enough to know others, or am I deluding myself more than I may even realize? How many of us truly do know ourselves as well as we think or may guess we do? I think I know myself, but I still sometimes have nagging doubts about the truths being known, so my best effort is to speak of what I’m more sure of, and that’s certain facts of the world I’m far more sure of than self-knowledge of my personal experiences. Still, there are moments and sometimes long periods of time I seem to be fully aware of clearly knowing myself; but, the old demon of self-doubt arises, and I must reassess. How many times have we all done this? I’d say many; but seriously, I don’t know, as I truly can’t know what’s in other people’s minds, even when most tell me, as my interpreter may not be the same as others, and more often than not, I’m sure our interpreters are quite different, more often than the same. Does this sound honest, or am I deluding myself again?

I’ve often wondered why so many people do not see the same world I seem to be seeing, and to me, it’s in more recent years come down to some boundary conditions between varying category interpretation/s, or boundary states between meanings and interpretations, fundamentally, that’s far too often confusing the issues, whether they be experiences or straight intellectual ideas. Boundary states between each side of my own mind often do not match each’s truth systems and facts, so how could I expect anyone else’s to be any different, but I’m never sure how much others are aware of this mismatch between fundamental experiential feelings, morals and physical experiences on one side of my brain, and logic, ethics, reason and intellect on the other side. I’m almost sure others must have sensed this at times, but I’ve never had anyone admit it, and I know this to be true since being a moderator on certain physics forum sites, in the past, and speaking to others about it. The women seemed to express great concern when I mentioned that my own mind’s two sides, feelings and intellect were often in disagreement, within my brain; but, it is simply a natural state to me, and my study for many years has clearly born this out, all the way from the Zen masters, Aristotle’s “squares of oppositions”, Sohravardi’s relational logic, Kant’s antinomies, Peirce’s relational logic to Graham Priest’s “dialetheism”, which all interpret pretty close to my experiences, when considered from the most fundamental natural state of natural logic, or the “logica utens” of natural feelings.

How do we truly and honestly relate, when we all seem to use different word, meanings, and language systems, even within the same language member family, i.e., English? There really isn’t anything wrong with this, except for the fact of how much effort it takes to truly and honestly match varying interpreters; but, that can be a considerable effort, when “what I say may not be what you hear, and what you say may not be what I hear”. That can pose a considerable problem. An example is when America first wandered off course and stumbled into Her massively needless civil war, where so many young souls died, for nothing other than a lack of understanding language and ideas between the North and South, and really being no different than what I’ve often experienced between the two hemispheres of my own mind, shocking as this may sound – Both are nothing more than the misunderstandings of different and varying interpreters. I know this to be true because the extensive study I’ve done throughout my long life clearly showed this boogie-man to bear his ugly teeth every time, many times over, resulting in wars and civil wars, for nothing but the lack of understanding to write better universal laws to true, honest and better values and real justice, to satisfy the contesting sides. This is why I’ve attempted to solve this age-old problem, practically all my life, especially since the 3rd to 7th grade recitals of Abe Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in many different schools, which just happens to be a man who’s values I have always respected extremely highly. Too bad more people couldn’t realize we need those honest values from the Declaration of Independence’ Preamble used to interpret the U. S. Constitution just as Lincoln did for slavery and the Gettysburg funeral oration, and advised be done into the future constitutional interpretations. And, I know it’s an experiential values problem, first and foremost, far more than an abstract problem; but, How do we solve a fundamental values problem all the way from the particular personal to the universal boundary levels, other than taking Lincoln’s advice, in this massively divisive world of severe animosities?

The funny thing is, even if I can solve the internal interpretation problems of these boundary states within myself, and in turn see how to solve the external boundary states of laws, how could I even begin to have a world, or even another person see what my interpreter sees? The complexity of explanation is almost overwhelming, even to me, who’s tried to see this path, just about my entire life. So, would I expect anyone else to have the same interpreter? I think that would be asking too much of even myself, when I know full well, my own mind would cease functioning as a feeling and rational animal, if these two different boundary states were truly not necessarily independent, to correct each other’s false actions. So to me, if they are biologically necessary contraries and contradictions for fundamental values and values systems to be felt and analytically discussed/understood, and rationality and rational systems to be improved, why would I even begin to think the solution were simple? I don’t. It’s highly complex, and I think this fundamental self-co-logical problem of humanity’s existence with her half-twin nature, must first of all be solved, within us all. Only we can do that with deep interpretive self-understanding; and, that’s a lot of work.

Can I conquer myself? Can you conquer yourself? I think we can by talking enough; but, I fear that’s a lot of talking, and it hasn’t ever been done, so far, on this Earth.

Anyone care to attempt this massive task?