11.10.08
Posted in art, epistemology, ethics, language, logic, metaphysics, mind, ontology, philosophy, preterphysics, science at 4:12 pm by nogre
What follows is the second part of my metaphysics, which includes the basic outline of just about everything in this world: nature, science, ethics, language and more. Again it is impossibly short, but the overall structure is correct, so you get a flavor of how I think about everything non-preterphysical.
————
1 Metaphysical Ontology
1.1 Undisciplined Substances
To be disciplined is to take other people’s ontological position into consideration. Since it is impossible, without being crazy, to do otherwise, what is meant by `undisciplined’ is the minimal position: to take other people’s ontological position into consideration as little as possible.
1.1.1 Objects, Processes and Nature
Objects cannot exists alone. To observe an object, to recognize its existence, requires observing some process that the object is part of. Rational beings can lose their rationality; the process of losing rationality identifies a rational being, because the process could not occur without the existence of one.
Objects and processes are what make up Nature.
1.1.2 Words, Descriptions and Language
Words cannot exist alone; they are inseparable from descriptions. For a word to exist is for that word to be part of some description. Without being part of a description, a word is indistinguishable from anything else.
Words and descriptions are what make up Language.
1.1.3 Commitments, Values and Responsibility
Commitments cannot exist alone; they are inseparable from values. Values are how commitments are ranked. Without values all commitments are equal, and hence non-existent.
Commitments and values are what make up Responsibility.
1.2 Disciplined Substances
When you take other people into consideration when considering substance, then you have disciplined substance.
1.2.1 Science, Art and Craft
When we describe objects and processes in a disciplined way then we are describing nature scientifically. This means that the objects and processes are described in a way that is not limited to a particular person or place.
Craft is a level of discipline that is not as universalized: when you describe nature such that it refers to a group of people or various places, then you are describing craft.
1.2.2 Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric
When we describe words and descriptions in a disciplined way then we are are talking about the language’s grammar. This means that the words and descriptions are described in a way that is not limited to a particular description. If we are describing features that all languages have, then this is called logic.
Rhetoric is a level of discipline that is not as universalized: when you describe grammar such that it refers to a group of words or descriptions, then you are describing rhetoric.
1.2.3 Ethics, Worldview and Society
When we describe commitments and values in a disciplined way then we are talking about ethical responsibilities. This means that the commitments and values are described in a way that is not limited to a particular person or place. If we are describing features that all ethics have then this is a worldview.
Society is a level of discipline that is not as universalized: when you describe ethics such that it refers to a group of commitments or values, then you are describing a society.
File translated from TEX by TTH, version 3.79. On 10 Nov 2008, 14:59.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
10.25.08
Posted in epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy, preterphysics at 3:07 pm by nogre
A word of explanation before the actual text. Besides never setting out to write something like this, I think it is at best good; likely not too bad. Perhaps it is horrible, but all these determinations I leave to others. I wrote it because I felt there was nothing else to be done, and it is the best I can do at the moment.
So what did I write? The best way to describe the Prologue is to make a comparison to Descartes Cogito. I set out the barest basics for what I believe can be used as a foundation for knowledge and inquiry, and for what exists in general. And all in less than a page…
1 Prologue: Insanity
If am insane, then I have a problem. If I believe that I am insane, then there is nothing to be done because I am irreparably damaged and won’t be able to learn or understand anything.
I do not believe myself insane.
1.1 Substances
If I affirm the previous sentence then I may infer a few things:
- Descriptions and words exist, else I wouldn’t have been able to make the above statement; I wrote it.
- Commitments exist, else I wouldn’t have been able to affirm the above statement; I’m committed to it.
- Something other than words, descriptions and commitments exist, else I wouldn’t have had anything to describe or commit to.
These three existential statements are inferred from affirming that I am not insane. So if you say you are not insane then you can also be said to believe in commitments, descriptions, and other objects.
1.2 Discipline
Being irreparably damaged is the same as being insane; if damaged you’re incapable of understanding what others can understand. Therefore if you deny that you are insane then you deny that you are damaged.
Anyone who asserts that they are not damaged, not insane, is committed to an ontology that everyone who is sane will understand.
If it were false, i.e. you claim you are not insane and you are committed to an ontology that some who are sane cannot understand, then those who you say cannot understand are damaged in some way becaues they cannot understand but are also not insane. However, claiming that someone is incapable of understanding but not insane is nonsense.
Therefore there is no preferential ontological perspective: ontology is relative to the sane. All sane people are equal in the sense that they can understand each other, are reasonable, when researching the kinds of things that exist. This is not to say that there won’t be disagreements or that understanding will not take time and effort, but that there is no third option of being niether sane nor insane. Either you understand and can be understood or you do not and cannot. and this space between sanity and insanity will be dealt with in the section on preterphysics.
File translated from TEX by TTH, version 3.79. On 25 Oct 2008, 14:43.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
09.04.08
Posted in SEO, marketing, metaphysics, philosophy, preterphysics at 2:09 pm by nogre
I’ve made some progress on my metaphysics; enough to think about writing a monograph.
Today (Sept. 2 ‘08) I tried thinking of a name for this monograph. My thought process was to call it something with metaphysics but I couldn’t think of anything good. First of all the word metaphysics is inherently confused, so it is hard to use well. Its history, so I’ve been instructed, can be traced back to a librarian organizing Aristotle’s books on the shelf. The untitled book that contained what was to become Aristotle’s Metaphysics was sitting in front of Aristotle’s Physics, so the librarian called it ‘before physics’, Metaphysics. I know little of how words come into existence to pass judgment, but I am sure that I want to avoid all the baggage that this word has accumulated since then.
I thought about the Tractatus. ‘Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus’ is sufficiently meaningless such that it would be hard to regret calling it that later. I mean really. Of course it is a treatise, what philosophical text isn’t? And it’s on some logic and philosophy, ooo so descriptive. So even if W. changed his mind about any of the content, the title would still hold up.
So I began to wonder if it is worth it to have a particularly descriptive title at all. Then the hyphenation caught my eye. ’Hypermetaphysical’, ‘Pseudometaphysics’ and other prefixed monstrosities ran through my thoughts but I finally came upon pretermetaphysical. It is just too damn long. Preterphysical is less long, is meaningless though suggestive, and preter- means nearly the exact same thing as meta-.
No baggage either. Google returned 3 results for preterphysical and 0 for preterphysics. Of the 3 that came up for preterphysical, one was a cached reference to one of the other pages and 404ed when I tried to view it and the other 2 used the word one time each and only in passing. That sealed it. I am writing The Preterphysics.
Now no one steal my cool name. I claim it!!!!!!
————-
[For anyone who wonders why this was filed under SEO and Marketing, one of the goals of this post is to claim the name "The Preterphysics" for myself. In less than 3 days of publishing this post I'll likely be #1 in Google for a search for "Preterphysics" and "Preterphysical". (UPDATE: I am #1 now, only 6 hours after publishing) By having a blog and posting regularly (and no spam) Google and the other search engines regularly scan this site for new content. Granted, these words are made up and so there aren't other people who are using them, so there is no competition for becoming #1. However, this is irrelevant to my purposes: I am trying to claim some intellectual property space and being first counts for something. I am still 3, 4 and 6 in Google searches for "relativity biology" because of these posts months ago. One of the purposes for this blog is to be a record of things I have written and, since I am outside of academia, having a public record of when my work was published goes a long way in establishing a timeline of ideas (showing that the ideas were mine). At this point it would be hard for someone to make a claim to any of my philosophy of biology since it has been public domain for a good while now (and philosophy carnivalled). Sure I could try to get my work into a journal -all considering it would hit my target audience a bit more than this website and provide an even more secure record of my work- but journal publishing is much about being an academic (and takes forever and I'd probably not make the cut anyway). I'm concerned with getting my ideas out there, claiming the intellectual space for myself, and making it available to anyone who is like-minded. This post (even as silly as it is, making fun of Wittgenstein for titling his book as he did, completely deflating any meaning from my own words, and harping on hyphenation) does all of that because of the established internet machinery.]
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
