Here we all are, involved in a Quest for a theory of everything__most without realizing the near impossibility of thought and language__to even achieve this vast goal, without first requiring a thoroughly new linguistics and language understanding. Just take a look back at Socrates’, Plato’s and Aristotle’s eras, and you’ll quickly see the roots of this very problem. Socrates defeased all arguments to aporia, meaning he deconstructed all arguments to the limits of undecidability. Plato argued all ideas to total exhaustion, while trying to exclude imagination from all such agruments. Aristotle used all the previous methods, plus inventing his own special definitions of logical exclusions, to win his debates. They all used special tactics to win philosophical, psychological and cognitive arguments, yet all grounded their ideas in different states of knowing…
Socrates grounded his knowing in proving the not-knowing ability of aporia. Plato grounded his knowing in proving to the Universals, and Aristotle grounded his knowing in proving to the individual metaphysicals, that is, reason was grounded in God, whereas Plato’s grounding was in God’s Universals, yet Socrates grounding was in a total background independence, of not knowing__Which actually turns out to be the closest to the truth, of real possible proof. The funny thing is, most have never realized practically nothing of the same old debates has really changed over the millenia. We are actually still debating these same issues, to these very same, yet, different three grounds__and none of them are truly grounded, as Socrates is the ground of no ground. Plato excludes imagination, which is actually required in the grounding of anyone’s full spirit, and Aristotle excludes the most of all with his special definitions of logic, which just happens to be the most incomplete reasoning system of all three__as clearly proven by Boole, Ibn Sina, Peirce, Tarski and Hintikka…
So, what’s to be done, when differences of opinion, such as between myself, Greg and others creeps into our search…? I see these differences of style, and know they are linguistic differences of cognitions at the meta- and meta-meta-understanding levels, but am incapable of convincing any others they are simple mis-understandings and mis-interpretations of the meta- and meta-meta-languages used, which implicitly and explicitly contain the many meta-levels of meanings nested in, or added into the languages used by everyone, by free-will and choices of debate styles… I see the same exact arguments between the early Greeks, as do I between the moderns mentioned above, and Greg, myself and others__They are identical and un-changing in nature, from the Greeks and others onward… So, what is to be done, when one group may recognize the fact, an entirely new language is absolutely required to even discuss a ToE, let alone fully produce its finished results, and other groups and individuals are not even aware of these glaringly obvious facts and necessities…?
Everyone can easily think they are immune to the nature of meta- and meta-meta-complexities, but no-one truly is__It’s the nature of the game of human language__by default evolution. Nobody’s paying attention to how they are thinking about thinking, except to advantage ones own positions__and herein lies the largest part of the problem. We all have ingrained habits to use language to our best abilities to achieve our desired goals of getting our own points across__while never considering the damage our own words, and use of concepts, may, in reality, be menacing to the alternate parties involved. We are all guilty of this, even the spiritualists, when they state ‘higher consciousness’ etc., without even realizing how insulting this is to all those with lower consciousness or states of mind. So, how can ‘higher consciousness’ be any higher when its insulting to its subordinates, to even mention such terms…? In fact it can’t be true, so it’d truly be a much wiser road for all the consciousness advocates to take the lower road of transc(i)ndence instead of transc(e)ndence, as it’s far less offensive to advocate a lower state of knowledge than the higher pompous state of knowledge. The lower road is the safer and more civil path__to relay information, knowledge, intelligence or wisdom to others…
Now, what would this lower road consist of…? It’s not a giant system, as many would think. It’s simply the missing common sense dialogue of profound common sense, being recognized as the old wisdom, that’s been lost for so many years. It’s simply the middle interpretation between all the differences. It’s the entire parts of all systems’ thinking, being fully recognized within the parameters of the general universal concepts__and the Universal perameters being recognized about the entire parts of all Universal systems. It’s simply a system of not excluding any of the information having validity of description, within its own domains, yet not pertaining to domains outside its own domain, unless it actually does happen to apply to these other domains. It’s simple recognizing the absolute necessity of domain categorizations just as Linneaus long ago taught, as well as did Aristotle and many others, but Linneaus is still the stronger case, as it classifies sentience from sapience within species… It offers the world one of the best domain classification systems, as its organized in a dependence level from bottom to top, just as was also offered by Peirce, for a much larger philosophic scientific system of actual ordered dependencies, from bottom to top, or top to bottom, if that’s your flavor… We can not do without these ordered domain classification sytems, when trying to build the information and language systems, that absolutely must be built, to describe any form of a ToE…
Just as an example; How do we classify anything within a Universal domain, unless we classify everything within that domain, in thorough particular terms, that we know actually belong and return to that Universal domain…? How do we classify anything within a particular domain, unless we classify everything within its domain, in a return path to its original Universal domain, from which it came…? These circular domain links must be made, to have any of our Universals and Particulars make any reasonable sense to us, or we’re simply left swimming in the sea of undefined meta- and meta-meta-confusions and conflations of the true facts… In order to achieve this goal, we must recognize the absolute need for such a goal to achieve sound and valuable science, since science without values, use, aims goals, etc., is simply ‘Methodological Stupidity’, and we are interested in only its opposite, ‘Methodological Wisdom’, which is simply science with known uses, aims and goals__or real values to the human race__This will require, ‘A New Universal Language of Social-Scientific Philosophy of Generality With Genericity…’
When anyone attempts to take science to the level of ‘Naked Science’(science without values), one is simply taking that science to the level of ‘Pure Methodological Stupidity’, just as many of the early Greeks did, and the ‘logical positivists’ did, in the 19th and early `20th centuries. It took the ‘Pure Methodological Wisdom’ of Boole, DeMorgan, Schroder, Peirce, Jevons, Veblen and Keynes to raise the world from the ‘logical positivist’s’ sewer of ‘Pure Methodological Stupidity’ of the earlier era, and now the world seems to have drifted back into this foolish era again__We must take the reins and rise to a new day, once again, by simply recognizing the ‘True Methodological Wisdom’ we are centainly capable of__as it’s no more than that good old stand-by of profound common sense__’The Middle Way of True Experiential Human Values, Aims, Goals and True Use, Added to Science...’
No comments:
Post a Comment