JHuber
 
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 12:20 am
Unlike theism which is imaginary and atheism which is nothing this worldview actually exists in the field. It is based on subjects and relations which have the highest conceptual scope of all words. It conforms with evolution theory, includes the definitions for right, wrong, happiness and love, and it has a moral code. It also has a diagram.

This is an issue that goes back to the middle ages:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/z3609.html

The failure of the medieval philosophers to solve this problem is the reason why I believe we are at war.

Relations can be composed of units, objects or subjects. The relations of units is mathematics. The relations of objects is engineering. The relations of subjects is a worldview.

http://subjectsandrelations.com/Sbj1/SUBJ1.jpg


Some of these items are not in the diagram, not everything can be drawn.

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Horror - excessive Bad
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Value - direction of a relation
Like - to share Values


Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.

1stC - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created. The terms 'more' and 'less' do not apply with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not say, "Happiness is the combination of subjects," but, "Happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation."

2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms 'more' and 'less' apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment exist because of 2ndC.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Another term that applies here is "fashion". Fashion is the active form of contentment. This type of happiness is personal and can be stronger than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:


Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment) *
Grief - not having what you want *
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - extreme Frustration
Distress - having what you don't want*
Relief - not having what you don't want*

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination.

Sorry - empathetic Unhappiness
Regret - the action toward Sorry
Gratitude - the action toward antipathetic Happiness
Forgive - declaring Unhappiness to be irrelevant
Blame - declaring Unhappiness to be relevant
Nervous - anticipation of a combination
Shy - extreme Nervousness
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Concern - mild Worry
Fear - extreme Worry
Terror - extreme Fear
Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror

Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - extreme Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - antipathetic Pride
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion
Admiration - the action toward Respect
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - antipathetic Shame
Contempt - extreme Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity

Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation
Ecstatic - extreme Surprise
Sadness - extreme Disappointment or Embarrassment
Hate - extreme antipathy
Love - extreme empathy
Miss - absent empathy

Axiom: Extrinsic subjects can never be related intrinsic subjects. Such an event would instantly cause a new extrinsic subject to exist. This is called "The League Rule" or "The Authority Rule."

Axiom: Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate. This is called "The Base Rule". It is a significant factor in physical morality.


*The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory. In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.

This is a system that is common to us all. It is not only about the mind but it is about the body as well. We are all subjects and we all have relatives. It can easily be proved in the same that a whole is composed of parts or the many is composed of ones. All that needs to be done is to include it in academic philosophy. This is the only solution for world peace. No other words are possible.
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 12:49 am
@JHuber,
I congratulate your attempt at a comprehensive world-view !
Alas, your very axiom of "objectivity" easily lends itself to demolition as do many simplistic one-liners like "the whole is composed of parts" (see for example Gestalism). However, I will not labour the point. Suffice to say that your "system" may be sufficiently nebulous for you to convince yourself that you can repel dissenters by retreating through a web of "catch-all" concepts.
I wish you luck ! Smile
igm
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 05:52 am
@JHuber,
In an effort to understand... only the thought of Ockham and the application of his razor came to mind.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 08:58 am
@JHuber,
http://www.sopwithproductions.com/cell_images/sl_10.jpg

I was taught better things by my dogs than all the learned men I know.

No wonder the ancients wrote.......Job 12:7 "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:"

and I agree with Fresco. By using words themselves that hold different meanings in different times and places to different people places your argument upon sand.

Nevertheless, you have started a very good discussion and one which I will certainly enjoy reading.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 08:48 pm
@fresco,
Gestaltism is just bad maths...the whole is the sum of its parts if functions rather then just things are considered part of the sum...I think I´ve explained this twenty times by now...but u guys just keep with the same old 70´s clichés...
JHuber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 01:00 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Actually, what I said was that the whole is composed of parts.

There is no such thing as a relation of a singularity. They must be composed of something.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
You and your maths ! Laughing
Read Merlau -Ponty for example. "Parts" are predicated on "wholes". This is the essence of the top-down analysis of "systems" such as are common in biology, and by inference to the social sciences. Try defining "a blood-cell" without reference to "the body"....or try defining "behaviour of an individual" without reference to "society". This is essence of the celebrated phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". It has nothing to do with arithmetic.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 08:21 am
@fresco,
Thats where you ate wrong...it has everything to do with arithmetics!
What you mean by whole are systemic functions which require algorithmic "completness" to operate...we agree in there, but analise the algorithm substructure and maths will ad up, so the cliche is wrong!
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 12:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
We don't agree !
Try stating, for example, "the algorithm" which accounts for the interaction of sensory motor components in the perception of colour. It has been shown (by Varela and Rosch for example) that the perception of colour cannot be accounted for by measurement of the wavelength of light, nor by the functioning of specific colour receptors or neurones in the visual cortex. It also involves sociolinguistic norms which actively guide the focus of the observer such that..
Quote:
"the organism chooses the stimuli to which it will be sensitive. The environment emerges from the world through the actualization of the being of the organism" Merlau-Ponty

There is no way in which the "parts" (rods, cones, neurones) of "the visual system" can adequately "add up" to the functioning of that system. And trying to expand the "whole" to encompass "whole body" is also inadequate because the "social environment" also plays its part. So what next ? Do we try to specify "the algorithm for social interaction" ? But if we were to do that for humans we also have to account for the "questioning behaviour" of individuals we call scientists/philosophers who are "moved" to attempt algorithmic analysis in the first place !!! Smile And therein lies the nested regress which I have described to you.
In short, algorithms require stated boundaries and clear goals. That is why a computer can play chess but cannot identify "objects" except in an ad hoc manner where an arbitrary set of boundary conditions for "objectivity" have been pre-programmed by a human with social experience.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 12:54 pm
@fresco,
Well said!
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 01:40 pm
@fresco,
You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about do you Fresco ?
First who said human being is the system I am referring to as a WHOLE for the purpose ?
As far as I remember human being is itself an interacting system not a closed one...The system and the algorithm in here is established between the form of the data from the "outside", the form of the information in the brain at large, and the "form" of the eye and the brain as a mechanism...all of them shape the algorithm by which an exact sum of the parts, and those parts include actions, result in the meta-phenomenal experience which is what you "see"...

Now if you are enquiring why an algorithm works the way it works, or why the sun is yellow and the sky is blue as an experience you have to ask God not me...my argument is just against the stupidity of such sentences like "the whole is more then the sum of its parts"...they got me with that one when I was 16 in high school, and I just like you, I would exactly say the same crap you just said, meanwhile I grew up and came to learn what is truly at stake in this kind of pseudo debate between humanist/anarchists and people that don´t appreciate the onion soup you guys are doing with everything...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 01:57 pm
@fresco,
Merlau-Ponty's quote would apply--indeed starkly--to the experience of the arts. Just imagine the immense difference in "chosen stimuli" between participants at a rock concert and those at a performance of Bach's Concerto in D Minor for Two Violins and Piano or exhibits by Picasso and Kinkaid.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:04 pm
@fresco,
You might want to illuminate Fil on Emergentism, where 1 + 1 = the unforeseen.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...the more adequate and fairly intelligent reply to your mystifying sequence of nonsense should have been in sum as short as to tell you that in order to be happy human beings don´t have to believe in fairy´s, and that my friend, that was one of the more important messages of Nietzsche that most will never learn essentially not just because they are incompetent but sadly because they are unwilling...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:10 pm
@kuvasz,
I am well aware on the concept of emergence...and does n´t change a thing on what I said...the last piece of the puzzle is the effect ! that´s where you have the bloody complete algorithm ! That´s why I like the concept of information at large, it fuses in the same thing primitive concepts like hardware and software...if you get at what I am at...hopefully.

...arrogantly I tell you guys more...this was never a matter of I being possibly wrong this is just a matter of language and the use you do of it being far behind my own concepts and use...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Were do consciousness and qualia fit into your thesis?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:23 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Correct, I have no idea what you are talking about. The question is whether you do !
You have admitted (I think) that algorithms (of systems) require "a specific purpose" to coherent. The crux of the matter is therefore whether you believe that "natural systems" have "a purpose" ( a form of theism) or whether humans merely ascribe "purpose" to systems because they like algorithmic models. I suspect you are drawn to the "belief" aspect, but hide behind a vested interest in algorithms per se and a blinkered view of teleology.
For my part, I am willing to accept that "science" proceeds with the purpose of trying to predict (and retrodict) certain phenomena, and in this respect, algorithmic modelling may have its uses in limited (closed) focal situations. But in "open" situations, like the observation of observation, algorithmic analysis breaks down because it assumes the modeller is independent of "the system" being described. And as Von Glasersfeld points out...
Quote:
An observer has no operational basis to make any statement or claim about objects, entities or relations as if they existed independently of what he or she does.

...hence my previous point that the behaviour called "algorithmic analysis" per se cannot be an all embracing epistemological panacea.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:24 pm
@kuvasz,
...besides what you are stating as nothing to do with the whole being more then the sum of its parts...in all fairness, 1+1=1+1 the 2 is a code transcription a shortcut for a function described previously in the very 1+1...
When you say 1+1=2 you are implying action and relation between an object and its effect a function in itself ! Again why the sun is yellow or the sky is blue is not the matter at hand !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:31 pm
@fresco,
I am not debating independence here...independence is just another freaking nonsense...just listen the freaking word INDEPENDENCE...of what ? My point is precisely relation and completeness while yours with the bloody misconception of emergence is rather about fragmentation and magic !
The issue I addressed was the whole being more and not independence ...I am not interested in that old man´s crap of boxing and compartmentalizing certain phenomena as independent or dependent...in all fairness and truth they, just are !
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 02:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
certain phenomena as independent or dependent...in all fairness and truth, they just are !


No they are not ! They are "brought forth" by cognition. It is cognition which ascribes "parts" to "wholes", and it is cognition which recognizes that the whole is functionally transcendent of its parts.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » An Objective View
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/21/2017 at 01:07:30