Friday, December 21, 2012
Suspending Questioning
I have found other things to fill my time, and I think I am lacking inspiration and passion to continue writing at this time.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Expectations and Disappointments 11/29/12
How, why, do we become disappointed, and why, and, how do our expectations determine our disappointments?
First I start by proposing that expectations can not exist without "of". This means that expectation requires some type of subject or result. These results can be of people, self, or objects & events.
We start by understanding a goal as an expectation. Almost anything that you can think of can be a goal you can think of, expect, and a goal that you can work towards. Thoughts can arise that are possible goals, and not expectations yet. It is not till one commits themselves to some goal/end that there exists an expectation. Thinking of goals, with no certainty invested into their existence, does not disappoint.
We then think of the first version of disappointment to come from:
1) Expectation without action - A) Expectation lost because of self "elimination" (rejection of end), will cause very little disappointment as converse to B) Expectation lost because of "exterior elimination".
Two examples: A) A man has an expectation that he will get the number of a girl he is interested in at the bar. He then dismisses the intention-end, and feels no disappointment. B) The same man voices or expresses his intention (through communication not physical action) and his friend tells him that he knows the girl, and that she is off limits, having a boyfriend already.
When the expectation is given up (when the goal is no longer prominent in foresight) there may be some disappointment. The stronger one's expectation, the more single-minded their predications of their fulfillment of goals, the more disappointment one is going to feel when those ends are no longer achievable or obtainable.
2) Expectation with personal action - Most of the time an expectation is only disappointing as a result of having not only thought of a goal but having acted for it (to have x, to be x). Likewise, as the above form of disappointment, when one eliminates from thought an end even though they have acted they are likely to feel less disappointment. When the goal is eliminated as because of physical events or the events caused by other, with action already invested into them, the more work without actualization of end-goal, the more disappointment is likely.
The maybe expectation and its power to make a person practical and resilient: If we think of the outcomes as probably happening or not happening, we become practical. The more evidence there is that the outcomes will happen or won't happen according to our positive and negative expectations (it will happen, it won't happen), the more we are likely to lean toward or affirming a positive or negative intentional actualization.
Examples of affirmation of positive with evidence of the positive : I am the only one that fulfilled an application for the job in a month, and I am very experienced for it, and I have received the employees admiration, therefore, the probability of me getting the job is positive (will happen).
Example of affirmation of the positive with evidence of the negative: I am one of a hundred people who filled out an application in the last month. I don't have that much experience. The employer didn't really focus on me with much interest in his eye. Upon these three premises of a negative actualization (won't happen) the person says, but "I have faith that I will get this job."
Evidence leads to "expectational certainties", and affirmation despite evidence is "self-affirmed expectational certainty."
In these examples, they are particular, and might not be applied to give sense to one's own relative ends. Many more examples might be written up. The evidence and odds that are added up is either in favor or not in favor of a person, and can determine the positive or negative expectations.
Having both a positive and negative expectation reduces disappointment, and is practical dependent on evidence/information and odds that are in favor of either expectational view.
In these examples, we see that faith causes unrealistic affirmation of ends, setting people up to give up on working towards practical and likely ends. Faith is compensating or a substitute for deduction and natural predication.
Questions derived:
1.) How to expect things with greater certainty?
2.) How knowledge becomes expectation?
First I start by proposing that expectations can not exist without "of". This means that expectation requires some type of subject or result. These results can be of people, self, or objects & events.
We start by understanding a goal as an expectation. Almost anything that you can think of can be a goal you can think of, expect, and a goal that you can work towards. Thoughts can arise that are possible goals, and not expectations yet. It is not till one commits themselves to some goal/end that there exists an expectation. Thinking of goals, with no certainty invested into their existence, does not disappoint.
We then think of the first version of disappointment to come from:
1) Expectation without action - A) Expectation lost because of self "elimination" (rejection of end), will cause very little disappointment as converse to B) Expectation lost because of "exterior elimination".
Two examples: A) A man has an expectation that he will get the number of a girl he is interested in at the bar. He then dismisses the intention-end, and feels no disappointment. B) The same man voices or expresses his intention (through communication not physical action) and his friend tells him that he knows the girl, and that she is off limits, having a boyfriend already.
When the expectation is given up (when the goal is no longer prominent in foresight) there may be some disappointment. The stronger one's expectation, the more single-minded their predications of their fulfillment of goals, the more disappointment one is going to feel when those ends are no longer achievable or obtainable.
2) Expectation with personal action - Most of the time an expectation is only disappointing as a result of having not only thought of a goal but having acted for it (to have x, to be x). Likewise, as the above form of disappointment, when one eliminates from thought an end even though they have acted they are likely to feel less disappointment. When the goal is eliminated as because of physical events or the events caused by other, with action already invested into them, the more work without actualization of end-goal, the more disappointment is likely.
The maybe expectation and its power to make a person practical and resilient: If we think of the outcomes as probably happening or not happening, we become practical. The more evidence there is that the outcomes will happen or won't happen according to our positive and negative expectations (it will happen, it won't happen), the more we are likely to lean toward or affirming a positive or negative intentional actualization.
Examples of affirmation of positive with evidence of the positive : I am the only one that fulfilled an application for the job in a month, and I am very experienced for it, and I have received the employees admiration, therefore, the probability of me getting the job is positive (will happen).
Example of affirmation of the positive with evidence of the negative: I am one of a hundred people who filled out an application in the last month. I don't have that much experience. The employer didn't really focus on me with much interest in his eye. Upon these three premises of a negative actualization (won't happen) the person says, but "I have faith that I will get this job."
Evidence leads to "expectational certainties", and affirmation despite evidence is "self-affirmed expectational certainty."
In these examples, they are particular, and might not be applied to give sense to one's own relative ends. Many more examples might be written up. The evidence and odds that are added up is either in favor or not in favor of a person, and can determine the positive or negative expectations.
Having both a positive and negative expectation reduces disappointment, and is practical dependent on evidence/information and odds that are in favor of either expectational view.
In these examples, we see that faith causes unrealistic affirmation of ends, setting people up to give up on working towards practical and likely ends. Faith is compensating or a substitute for deduction and natural predication.
Questions derived:
1.) How to expect things with greater certainty?
2.) How knowledge becomes expectation?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Knowing and Intending 11/28/12
"To know" and "To intend."
Knowing may require an intention to know although sometimes learning comes about because of spontaneous generation. Epiphanies are common upon using creative thought or hearing some one speak. Though one might be watching television they might not as much to do with intending information into one's mind.
To know, can be an intention. "I want to know what you did yesterday." We see that if we link knowing to our desires we can intend to know things about the world.
Some categories for acquiring knowledge are of,
A) The temporal & B) ontological "What did you do yesterday?" We see here that the question is asking about : the noun of a person, its behaviors or experiences, and a point in time. What is the ontological (did you do) question about temporal particulars (yesterday).
C) Structure and properties, "What is a television made of?" Here we again think of the ontological question of what. Next we think of the categorical term, or primary attribute of a whole, television. Next we ask for the parts of it.
D) Causes and effects, "Why is the TV? " and E) mechanical interactions, "how does the tv work? The tv is the mechanism. Without a mechanism involved, even atomic mechanisms there is NO how that can be asked to acquire information about the working parts of the thing. If we ask "how" does a rock work, we do not begin to think of its nature as mechanistic. We could ask "how is the rock a tangible thing?", and have possible answers. If we ask why a rock exists, we might take the rock and think of any of its results or any of the causes for the existence of the rock.
Knowing itself is different from intending in that knowing is a mental activity that doesn't result in action of the body, but rather accommodation of information. Once something is known, it can be used for intention. "I learned how to jump" is an example of how knowledge of behavior is knowledge of intention, and the knowledge of intention can be used to intend.
Even ontological knowledge of properties can be used as intentions, as in endowing things; extracting properties into mind, than forcing them out upon things, then taking the properties and adding them into the thing. This of course is not a science, as chemical properties have domain over all things, rather than just imagination of x having some property k.
Knowing may require an intention to know although sometimes learning comes about because of spontaneous generation. Epiphanies are common upon using creative thought or hearing some one speak. Though one might be watching television they might not as much to do with intending information into one's mind.
To know, can be an intention. "I want to know what you did yesterday." We see that if we link knowing to our desires we can intend to know things about the world.
Some categories for acquiring knowledge are of,
A) The temporal & B) ontological "What did you do yesterday?" We see here that the question is asking about : the noun of a person, its behaviors or experiences, and a point in time. What is the ontological (did you do) question about temporal particulars (yesterday).
C) Structure and properties, "What is a television made of?" Here we again think of the ontological question of what. Next we think of the categorical term, or primary attribute of a whole, television. Next we ask for the parts of it.
D) Causes and effects, "Why is the TV? " and E) mechanical interactions, "how does the tv work? The tv is the mechanism. Without a mechanism involved, even atomic mechanisms there is NO how that can be asked to acquire information about the working parts of the thing. If we ask "how" does a rock work, we do not begin to think of its nature as mechanistic. We could ask "how is the rock a tangible thing?", and have possible answers. If we ask why a rock exists, we might take the rock and think of any of its results or any of the causes for the existence of the rock.
Knowing itself is different from intending in that knowing is a mental activity that doesn't result in action of the body, but rather accommodation of information. Once something is known, it can be used for intention. "I learned how to jump" is an example of how knowledge of behavior is knowledge of intention, and the knowledge of intention can be used to intend.
Even ontological knowledge of properties can be used as intentions, as in endowing things; extracting properties into mind, than forcing them out upon things, then taking the properties and adding them into the thing. This of course is not a science, as chemical properties have domain over all things, rather than just imagination of x having some property k.
Irrational habits vs. rational choices - 11/27
Rational decisions are choices that lead to life-benefits. Life-benefits are fulfillment of needs, or choices that effect and strengthen the probability of survival.
What are some common irrational habits?
1. Addiction - substance abuse that decrease health. The irrational end of addiction decreases health as in: Smoking, drinking, overeating, as examples.
2. Delusion - thinking x is, with complete certainty though the idea cannot be shown to cause itself in existence. As in the idea of the nebulous spirit entity which some think the human and animal bodies might be endowed with. These include prayer, supernatural healing, casting out demons, encountering or encouraging thoughts concerning spiritual communication, thought broad casting, and some others.
3. Irrational fears - Irrational fears can result in PTSD and agoraphobia as examples, which hinders the ability to work and do normal activities.
5. Other irrational behaviors - OCD (a time consuming habit), and high risk addiction (gambling).
6. The existence of illegal behavior may be deemed irrational, and might be considered to be a habit.
All irrational behaviors and thoughts can differ in their severity to disable and cause a decrease in health.
Irrational tendencies persist because the mind is not a mechanism that is solely able to intended in the interests of life. The mind can come into contact with things that are pleasing, pleasurable, but not always in their benefit. Man did not evolve a mechanism to keep him from gambling, spending money on pleasure-hook drugs. Money is an artificial mode of gaining ends which may or may not be in one's own interest. Addictions may result in pleasure, but may also hinder a person from taking care of themselves through work and income. Some addictions and irrational behaviors can cost money, that would other-wise be spent on a more important needs.
How to escape irrational habits? Refer the article "conditioning yourself."
What are some common irrational habits?
1. Addiction - substance abuse that decrease health. The irrational end of addiction decreases health as in: Smoking, drinking, overeating, as examples.
2. Delusion - thinking x is, with complete certainty though the idea cannot be shown to cause itself in existence. As in the idea of the nebulous spirit entity which some think the human and animal bodies might be endowed with. These include prayer, supernatural healing, casting out demons, encountering or encouraging thoughts concerning spiritual communication, thought broad casting, and some others.
3. Irrational fears - Irrational fears can result in PTSD and agoraphobia as examples, which hinders the ability to work and do normal activities.
5. Other irrational behaviors - OCD (a time consuming habit), and high risk addiction (gambling).
6. The existence of illegal behavior may be deemed irrational, and might be considered to be a habit.
All irrational behaviors and thoughts can differ in their severity to disable and cause a decrease in health.
Irrational tendencies persist because the mind is not a mechanism that is solely able to intended in the interests of life. The mind can come into contact with things that are pleasing, pleasurable, but not always in their benefit. Man did not evolve a mechanism to keep him from gambling, spending money on pleasure-hook drugs. Money is an artificial mode of gaining ends which may or may not be in one's own interest. Addictions may result in pleasure, but may also hinder a person from taking care of themselves through work and income. Some addictions and irrational behaviors can cost money, that would other-wise be spent on a more important needs.
How to escape irrational habits? Refer the article "conditioning yourself."
Monday, November 26, 2012
To give Attention to
What are the things attention can engage with? I stick with the simple categorization of the world into three parts.
1. A) Thing : Attention given to a clock. B) Event : Attention given the an apple falling from a tree.
2. Others : When attention is engaged by others it can be to think of them or to communicate with them.
3. Self or self thought - A) Attention can engage with behaviors and properties of the physical self B) It can engage with or become thought, as word, vision, etc..
To increase awareness one can think of the details of what they are thinking of.
Attention is a constant phenomena of thought, where as its engagement is automated or selective.
There might be an amount of information or stimulus that the mind or attention can engage. We know through memory tests that : the bigger, quicker, and complicated the experience the less we remember of its composition. Since focus is selective and also conditioned while engaging with "too much" or "irrelevant" information the mind turns away and is able to process information without much confusion.
How attention remains unconfused and begets tactical moves is a hard problem of consciousness (thought).
Every mind lives and has attention within a field of sense and memory. Even cutting off all senses, a person can not interact in that environment without some of the mind going into the factors of the world. Attention depends on every sense as well as thought.
Practicing selective attention can be done with all the prior mentioned factors. This practice can help build sensory and mental skills and can be used to block out annoyers. If there is a stronger or mostly equal stimulus available in the environment an annoyer can go on existing without having its main result, to annoy.
Practicing selective attention makes it possible to focus on the more present concerns, instead of focusing on something like other issues. An example might be of a person who is having relationship issues and is at the same time pursuing a degree in some field. If their selective attention was practiced they might have an easier time to process the immediate important data.
1. A) Thing : Attention given to a clock. B) Event : Attention given the an apple falling from a tree.
2. Others : When attention is engaged by others it can be to think of them or to communicate with them.
3. Self or self thought - A) Attention can engage with behaviors and properties of the physical self B) It can engage with or become thought, as word, vision, etc..
To increase awareness one can think of the details of what they are thinking of.
Attention is a constant phenomena of thought, where as its engagement is automated or selective.
There might be an amount of information or stimulus that the mind or attention can engage. We know through memory tests that : the bigger, quicker, and complicated the experience the less we remember of its composition. Since focus is selective and also conditioned while engaging with "too much" or "irrelevant" information the mind turns away and is able to process information without much confusion.
How attention remains unconfused and begets tactical moves is a hard problem of consciousness (thought).
Every mind lives and has attention within a field of sense and memory. Even cutting off all senses, a person can not interact in that environment without some of the mind going into the factors of the world. Attention depends on every sense as well as thought.
Practicing selective attention can be done with all the prior mentioned factors. This practice can help build sensory and mental skills and can be used to block out annoyers. If there is a stronger or mostly equal stimulus available in the environment an annoyer can go on existing without having its main result, to annoy.
Practicing selective attention makes it possible to focus on the more present concerns, instead of focusing on something like other issues. An example might be of a person who is having relationship issues and is at the same time pursuing a degree in some field. If their selective attention was practiced they might have an easier time to process the immediate important data.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Forms of Love
1.) Object of Love
Many materials can have love invested in them. What can be deeper than that love is need. If woman love's her garden, and it is destroyed, she will not react with as much sadness or horror as she would if she had deep need invested into something.
This might not always be true, but it might be a principle, to separate material things into how much need is invested in them and how much love is invested in them, this way we might respond to the things we merely love and don't need, when lost or destroyed with less negative emotional repercussions.
This is essentially talking about the love of materials vs. the need of materials, where as in human or social relations though one might feel that love invested into something is more important than needing something from that other.
There might be a tendency between what we love and what we need, but it is not at all times existent. When we love something it means we don't want that thing destroyed, as love is about keeping things as they are. When a child loves a toy bear, for example, it will start to grasp for it when it is taken away or the object is removed for punishment. This is more prevalent the younger the child is into very early infancy. Grasping and forming an emotional attachment with things is part of human development and human nature.
The very existence of grasping, of holding on to, can be source of thinking of things as one's own. Many animals do not have hands to grasp things, instead what becomes objects of love or possessions usually amount to relations and the ends of hunger. This is not true of all animals.
2.) Person of Love
There is tendency in human beings for organisms that reciprocate feelings, either positive or negative, to form positive or negative relationships. When a parent causes pain to the child, it is likely there will exist some hate and aversion towards the parent, where as when a parent causes need fulfillment of the child there is likely a positive relationship bond. I have written about this more in former blogs.
A) Family - It is instinctual and a mechanism of some organisms to be their young and even stay with their mates as their offspring develops into old age. Some creatures, like insects, or turtles, leave their young to fend and grow up by themselves. It is not impossible for these creatures, theoretically, to take on relations with their other members of their species in later life.
B) Friend - Friends are people who do things together, that seek to know each other as to form a greater relation with the person. A rule might follow, that you can't have friends with people you don't know, or you haven't experienced doing things at a specific time and place with. Friends are also regard for human attributes, such as honesty, trust, encouragement, and consultation.
C) Romantic love - In any relationship that is effected by forms of flattery, approval, or proof of caring for each other, there is the potential for the end of sexual relations. Some one can flatter, be proud of, or admire another person without it being a romantic relationships, though these properties are relevant in the ontology of "romancing."
3.) Self-love
A person that fulfills their needs with success will have a strong sense of security brought on partially by their own efforts. The more successful a person becomes the more their self-esteem tends to rise. Confidence itself may just be a form of self-loving, accepting yourself for what you have done. Their is a culture trend that exists where people reject failure as created by economics and in doing so might reject themselves. Part of being a rational person is rejecting your own failure, and accepting your own success, and in doing either one's confidence may be effected.
It is reasonable to be as proud as your success.
The existence of other approval also can be used as a source of approving and therefore loving yourself. Rousseau made the distinction between these two forms of love. "In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a positive self-love, into amour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power of reason. In contrast, amour-propre is artificial and encourages man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others." - Wiki
Many materials can have love invested in them. What can be deeper than that love is need. If woman love's her garden, and it is destroyed, she will not react with as much sadness or horror as she would if she had deep need invested into something.
This might not always be true, but it might be a principle, to separate material things into how much need is invested in them and how much love is invested in them, this way we might respond to the things we merely love and don't need, when lost or destroyed with less negative emotional repercussions.
This is essentially talking about the love of materials vs. the need of materials, where as in human or social relations though one might feel that love invested into something is more important than needing something from that other.
There might be a tendency between what we love and what we need, but it is not at all times existent. When we love something it means we don't want that thing destroyed, as love is about keeping things as they are. When a child loves a toy bear, for example, it will start to grasp for it when it is taken away or the object is removed for punishment. This is more prevalent the younger the child is into very early infancy. Grasping and forming an emotional attachment with things is part of human development and human nature.
The very existence of grasping, of holding on to, can be source of thinking of things as one's own. Many animals do not have hands to grasp things, instead what becomes objects of love or possessions usually amount to relations and the ends of hunger. This is not true of all animals.
2.) Person of Love
There is tendency in human beings for organisms that reciprocate feelings, either positive or negative, to form positive or negative relationships. When a parent causes pain to the child, it is likely there will exist some hate and aversion towards the parent, where as when a parent causes need fulfillment of the child there is likely a positive relationship bond. I have written about this more in former blogs.
A) Family - It is instinctual and a mechanism of some organisms to be their young and even stay with their mates as their offspring develops into old age. Some creatures, like insects, or turtles, leave their young to fend and grow up by themselves. It is not impossible for these creatures, theoretically, to take on relations with their other members of their species in later life.
B) Friend - Friends are people who do things together, that seek to know each other as to form a greater relation with the person. A rule might follow, that you can't have friends with people you don't know, or you haven't experienced doing things at a specific time and place with. Friends are also regard for human attributes, such as honesty, trust, encouragement, and consultation.
C) Romantic love - In any relationship that is effected by forms of flattery, approval, or proof of caring for each other, there is the potential for the end of sexual relations. Some one can flatter, be proud of, or admire another person without it being a romantic relationships, though these properties are relevant in the ontology of "romancing."
3.) Self-love
A person that fulfills their needs with success will have a strong sense of security brought on partially by their own efforts. The more successful a person becomes the more their self-esteem tends to rise. Confidence itself may just be a form of self-loving, accepting yourself for what you have done. Their is a culture trend that exists where people reject failure as created by economics and in doing so might reject themselves. Part of being a rational person is rejecting your own failure, and accepting your own success, and in doing either one's confidence may be effected.
It is reasonable to be as proud as your success.
The existence of other approval also can be used as a source of approving and therefore loving yourself. Rousseau made the distinction between these two forms of love. "In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a positive self-love, into amour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power of reason. In contrast, amour-propre is artificial and encourages man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others." - Wiki
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Why for Choice
I wrote about why in the first blog, but here I want to write about how it can be used, in more detail.
It can be asked for knowing the results of:
1. Self
2. People
3. Physical events
1) One can observe their own intentions, and discover why they are doing things. Even though one might not be consciousness, that is have awareness of the ends of their actions they may still act for those ends. This is probably what we observe happening if we could read the minds or tell what the minds of other animals were thinking like. The mechanisms that are activated upon ends, for need fulfillment in other animals, may not be questions so as to have knowledge of those ends.
If one observes themselves and how they are going about achieving the ends of their desires, they can ask "why" they are doing something, and may know because of repetition the "results" and therefore have access to information or a description of those probable results.
While observing need-mechanisms, one can observe themselves acting so as to consume, so as to reach a position, so as to achieve some desired quality.
Upon observing one's self, as in the observation of other's intentions and their ends, they may judge or choose them based on their rejection or acceptance of them. So a person may be caught up doing something, having accepted ends with out knowing them, or without realizing they were acting for them, and ask themselves why, and the proceed to consciously avoid or approach those ends.
The question why itself, and the awareness of the end, may create an aversive or approach reaction, without awareness of the duality of intention (won't/will, as written on in other articles).
2) One can observe the actions or behaviors of others, and might be able to deduce why the other is caught up, or doing, those things.
It is useful, at times to ask "why as for", in order to gain an idea of what the other is working towards, that is intending to exist as a result of their action. Some examples: "Why are you turning on the Television?" "Why are you taking this road?" "Why do adhere to that belief?" Any question of another intentions may be because of the existence of end that they can bring into your own consciousness field, and make you realize.
Caught up in mutual intentions, one can as a power of judgment, accept or deny those intentions from happening. Example, "will you go (future tense) to the movies with me." Intentions work as requests, however, sometimes individuals are willed or put into events, without realizing their ability to deny or accept, or knowing what ends will be actualized upon the mutual intentions. There is nothing more to intention besides origination and acceptance or denying of ends.
We are formed by the ends we repeat or the ends we are working towards! Both long-term and routine ends are transformation components of life or of human actuality. This will be written on in future blogs.
3.) We may observe physical phenomena and deduce because of similar experiences what is going to happen. x turns into y, only in consciousness as one is aware of the likely-hood of events repeating themselves. For example, one can ask what will become of a storm, this question is to ask for the ends of the event. With acknowledgement of the storms secondary properties, such as size and strength, from these properties there can come formation of results that one has foresight of. This is the same in any case where predictability exists.
When is why a futile question? A person may do something because they desire it, not really knowing the effects. Usually whey they are doing this, they revert backward to answer the question as in, "because I said so," instead of "because I want you "to be"(future considerations)".
In general why is futile when asking for the results of something A) unpredicted or B) not intended with ends in mind. No matter how much you ask a toddler (who can't speak) what it is intending to do it will not answer. It doesn't have the ability to deduce from its own intentions and behaviors what they will result in. Because of this, we may thinking of people who use the tool of why and judgment combined, as functioning at a more developed approach to reasoning, i.e. determining actions or physical events.
When is why insufficient in identifying things? Why is teleological, what is ontological. "what are you doing" a question of present action, is different than "what (why) are you doing x for?"
Questions that can come from this:
1) The difference between knowing and intending?
2) How to identify the who/person?
3) The importance of teleological and ontological distinction in child-development? How to teach children faster using teleological and ontological devices?
4) What is an algorithm for knowing "action to result?"
5) Teleology and ontology: How does this knowledge become developed with the Algorithm in mind?
6) How does the value of something determine our feelings when lost or gained?
It can be asked for knowing the results of:
1. Self
2. People
3. Physical events
1) One can observe their own intentions, and discover why they are doing things. Even though one might not be consciousness, that is have awareness of the ends of their actions they may still act for those ends. This is probably what we observe happening if we could read the minds or tell what the minds of other animals were thinking like. The mechanisms that are activated upon ends, for need fulfillment in other animals, may not be questions so as to have knowledge of those ends.
If one observes themselves and how they are going about achieving the ends of their desires, they can ask "why" they are doing something, and may know because of repetition the "results" and therefore have access to information or a description of those probable results.
While observing need-mechanisms, one can observe themselves acting so as to consume, so as to reach a position, so as to achieve some desired quality.
Upon observing one's self, as in the observation of other's intentions and their ends, they may judge or choose them based on their rejection or acceptance of them. So a person may be caught up doing something, having accepted ends with out knowing them, or without realizing they were acting for them, and ask themselves why, and the proceed to consciously avoid or approach those ends.
The question why itself, and the awareness of the end, may create an aversive or approach reaction, without awareness of the duality of intention (won't/will, as written on in other articles).
2) One can observe the actions or behaviors of others, and might be able to deduce why the other is caught up, or doing, those things.
It is useful, at times to ask "why as for", in order to gain an idea of what the other is working towards, that is intending to exist as a result of their action. Some examples: "Why are you turning on the Television?" "Why are you taking this road?" "Why do adhere to that belief?" Any question of another intentions may be because of the existence of end that they can bring into your own consciousness field, and make you realize.
Caught up in mutual intentions, one can as a power of judgment, accept or deny those intentions from happening. Example, "will you go (future tense) to the movies with me." Intentions work as requests, however, sometimes individuals are willed or put into events, without realizing their ability to deny or accept, or knowing what ends will be actualized upon the mutual intentions. There is nothing more to intention besides origination and acceptance or denying of ends.
We are formed by the ends we repeat or the ends we are working towards! Both long-term and routine ends are transformation components of life or of human actuality. This will be written on in future blogs.
3.) We may observe physical phenomena and deduce because of similar experiences what is going to happen. x turns into y, only in consciousness as one is aware of the likely-hood of events repeating themselves. For example, one can ask what will become of a storm, this question is to ask for the ends of the event. With acknowledgement of the storms secondary properties, such as size and strength, from these properties there can come formation of results that one has foresight of. This is the same in any case where predictability exists.
When is why a futile question? A person may do something because they desire it, not really knowing the effects. Usually whey they are doing this, they revert backward to answer the question as in, "because I said so," instead of "because I want you "to be"(future considerations)".
In general why is futile when asking for the results of something A) unpredicted or B) not intended with ends in mind. No matter how much you ask a toddler (who can't speak) what it is intending to do it will not answer. It doesn't have the ability to deduce from its own intentions and behaviors what they will result in. Because of this, we may thinking of people who use the tool of why and judgment combined, as functioning at a more developed approach to reasoning, i.e. determining actions or physical events.
When is why insufficient in identifying things? Why is teleological, what is ontological. "what are you doing" a question of present action, is different than "what (why) are you doing x for?"
Questions that can come from this:
1) The difference between knowing and intending?
2) How to identify the who/person?
3) The importance of teleological and ontological distinction in child-development? How to teach children faster using teleological and ontological devices?
4) What is an algorithm for knowing "action to result?"
5) Teleology and ontology: How does this knowledge become developed with the Algorithm in mind?
6) How does the value of something determine our feelings when lost or gained?
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Happiness : Deconstruction 11/23/12
First I apply what I have learned from thinking of a previous question. Happiness, is term denotation or a whole. Happiness is a state of being, that most come from properties as they exist in relation to being human. Happiness is thence a first property, that may have second and third properties. Herein, I have listed this "properties".
Primary: Happiness
Secondary: Fulfillment of needs, money, health, friends, higher desires.
Tertiary: Amount, frequencies, quality.
Secondary Deconstruction:
Having by virtue of income, need, and want, brings happiness.(1) pleasure in action (work, education) (2).
1. Needs and wants are satisfied through many outlets or inputs. Food, drink, relations, entertainment, shelter, clothes, transportation, education, occupation, business, etc. are all forms of needs and possible wants. The things which become an end of needs, can be thought of as second properties of happiness. Third properties would be amount of those ends, as in having a certain amount of food or number of relations. Health can be considered a need.
2. Pleasure in action - this means not only the need of education and occupation or the needs of relationship activities, but rather having those activities and find pleasure in them.
Examples:
1. Resources/education/occupation: People become so unhappy when they don't have what they need, that they either revolt, work harder, or perish. Social: People become so unhappy when with negative relations, they can disconnect the ties, become depressed, or contemplate suicide. Health: People are less happy the sicker they are.
2. People that are unhappy with work or education, quit, or they can't stand work, end up living on very low access to resources.
These results are not always true in all circumstances.
Below I have created a mock-up of a possible graph and variables that can be used to graph and quantify the existence of the prominence of the properties of happiness or dissatisfaction.
With this graph we can determine where we are when it comes to what we have and the state of mind we exist in as a consequence of having those things. The x is plotted as having a value as judged by the individual and that is added to its excess or deficiency.
Once the plotting or grading if complete, for any variable, one can think of how they might increase the first or second properties of the primary being.
As examples :
Secondary property -
Relations : Happiness within in the relationship depends on the feelings that are created by the people in the relationships. Doing things that are of mutual intention or desire, can bring about a greater positivity of the relation.
Food : One can try to buy food that has a greater beneficial or happiness quotient, as in the properties of the food and how they effect the living being and there sense of pleasure or health that come from that food (2ndry).
A1 Moving towards greater value of these properties can be called, "increasing positivity of secondary properties," or "positive emotional intentions for secondary properties" (peisp).
B1 Moving towards lesser valuable secondary properties can be called "decreasing positivity of secondary properties," or "negative emotional intentions for secondary properties (neisp)."
A person can judge their social life dependent on not having friends just as positive as one can rate it negative, thus this chart allows room for relative states, that is satisfaction with introversion or extroversion. However, more satisfaction, as a general principle can be said to come from relationships with other people where happiness is an end product.
Tertiary property -
Relations : One can try to increase the amount of positive relations they have or the frequency they spend in stimulating positivity from the relationship.
Food: One can increase the amount of foods they store.
These can be split into
A2 Moving towards greater excess can be called "increasing excess of x".
B2 Moving towards greater deficiency can be called "decreasing excess of x".
These ideas of excess and deficiency correspond or are very similar to the regulations of essential nutrients in the body. This deconstruction works not only with the quality and health advantages of food and the metabolism process, but the process of judgment and actualizing conditions of life, i.e. happiness-dissatisfaction.
If you are looking to measure your happiness-dissatisfaction, I have made a video an another blog for doing so, as found above. It is actually missing the ratio of expenses to income, but it isn't essential as these properties have relation to attainment of material happiness.
This is not completely compatible with a blog on the non-existence of need and happiness, which I deemed to no more than forms of acceptance or rejection of specific things.
This idea can be integrated with the Lövheim cube of emotion, as well as algorithms for desire-end functions. The second being an integration that might work with another theory I posted on accepting and avoiding ends, and the intensity of that judgment, reaction, or intention, as the only things which exist. Thinking like this, is to decrease the complexity of mental content, as emotional and biological (beneficial/detrimental) distinctions and judgments, reaction, or intentions, are more complex than in accepting or rejecting ends.
J.A.
Primary: Happiness
Secondary: Fulfillment of needs, money, health, friends, higher desires.
Tertiary: Amount, frequencies, quality.
Secondary Deconstruction:
Having by virtue of income, need, and want, brings happiness.(1) pleasure in action (work, education) (2).
1. Needs and wants are satisfied through many outlets or inputs. Food, drink, relations, entertainment, shelter, clothes, transportation, education, occupation, business, etc. are all forms of needs and possible wants. The things which become an end of needs, can be thought of as second properties of happiness. Third properties would be amount of those ends, as in having a certain amount of food or number of relations. Health can be considered a need.
2. Pleasure in action - this means not only the need of education and occupation or the needs of relationship activities, but rather having those activities and find pleasure in them.
Examples:
1. Resources/education/occupation: People become so unhappy when they don't have what they need, that they either revolt, work harder, or perish. Social: People become so unhappy when with negative relations, they can disconnect the ties, become depressed, or contemplate suicide. Health: People are less happy the sicker they are.
2. People that are unhappy with work or education, quit, or they can't stand work, end up living on very low access to resources.
These results are not always true in all circumstances.
Below I have created a mock-up of a possible graph and variables that can be used to graph and quantify the existence of the prominence of the properties of happiness or dissatisfaction.
Once the plotting or grading if complete, for any variable, one can think of how they might increase the first or second properties of the primary being.
As examples :
Secondary property -
Relations : Happiness within in the relationship depends on the feelings that are created by the people in the relationships. Doing things that are of mutual intention or desire, can bring about a greater positivity of the relation.
Food : One can try to buy food that has a greater beneficial or happiness quotient, as in the properties of the food and how they effect the living being and there sense of pleasure or health that come from that food (2ndry).
A1 Moving towards greater value of these properties can be called, "increasing positivity of secondary properties," or "positive emotional intentions for secondary properties" (peisp).
B1 Moving towards lesser valuable secondary properties can be called "decreasing positivity of secondary properties," or "negative emotional intentions for secondary properties (neisp)."
A person can judge their social life dependent on not having friends just as positive as one can rate it negative, thus this chart allows room for relative states, that is satisfaction with introversion or extroversion. However, more satisfaction, as a general principle can be said to come from relationships with other people where happiness is an end product.
Tertiary property -
Relations : One can try to increase the amount of positive relations they have or the frequency they spend in stimulating positivity from the relationship.
Food: One can increase the amount of foods they store.
These can be split into
A2 Moving towards greater excess can be called "increasing excess of x".
B2 Moving towards greater deficiency can be called "decreasing excess of x".
These ideas of excess and deficiency correspond or are very similar to the regulations of essential nutrients in the body. This deconstruction works not only with the quality and health advantages of food and the metabolism process, but the process of judgment and actualizing conditions of life, i.e. happiness-dissatisfaction.
If you are looking to measure your happiness-dissatisfaction, I have made a video an another blog for doing so, as found above. It is actually missing the ratio of expenses to income, but it isn't essential as these properties have relation to attainment of material happiness.
This is not completely compatible with a blog on the non-existence of need and happiness, which I deemed to no more than forms of acceptance or rejection of specific things.
This idea can be integrated with the Lövheim cube of emotion, as well as algorithms for desire-end functions. The second being an integration that might work with another theory I posted on accepting and avoiding ends, and the intensity of that judgment, reaction, or intention, as the only things which exist. Thinking like this, is to decrease the complexity of mental content, as emotional and biological (beneficial/detrimental) distinctions and judgments, reaction, or intentions, are more complex than in accepting or rejecting ends.
J.A.
To Thank
Thanksgiving day is a day of sharing appreciation. This appreciation is aggrandized by large amounts of food, which the body appreciates, and marks as reason to be thankful for the world that one lives in. What is being appreciated on this day, is the acquisition of a new land, the freedom of that land, the abundance of the production in that land, and the existence of family and people in that land.
When we thank people what are we doing? When a person thanks someone else they are showing that accept their kindness, their altruism, or plainly their actions. Take for example the phrase, "no thanks." This phrase shows us that thanks is acceptance.
Being thankful is part of etiquette, manners, treating other people with notice of their kindness. It may not be much of a tool, but as they say, a little thanks can go a long way.
If we approach the world and be thankful for it, we stimulate our own sense of being, in noticing the world as it is, is something to be "acceptant of". What do you have to be thankful for?
From thinking of this idea through out the day, I have thought about how being thankful might be consider a positive effector in relationships. People can appreciate others through gifts, as in the saying "Just a little way of saying thanks." There is a distinction that becomes noticed, between being thankful and exhibiting flattery, admiration, or other forms of human acceptence.
When we thank people what are we doing? When a person thanks someone else they are showing that accept their kindness, their altruism, or plainly their actions. Take for example the phrase, "no thanks." This phrase shows us that thanks is acceptance.
Being thankful is part of etiquette, manners, treating other people with notice of their kindness. It may not be much of a tool, but as they say, a little thanks can go a long way.
If we approach the world and be thankful for it, we stimulate our own sense of being, in noticing the world as it is, is something to be "acceptant of". What do you have to be thankful for?
From thinking of this idea through out the day, I have thought about how being thankful might be consider a positive effector in relationships. People can appreciate others through gifts, as in the saying "Just a little way of saying thanks." There is a distinction that becomes noticed, between being thankful and exhibiting flattery, admiration, or other forms of human acceptence.
To Describe as for to Act 11/20/12
Most thoughts that we think are of our description. Upon observation of the world, our focus begins to take it apart, by locking into a thing and thinking of what it is. Clearing the mind, is as simple as not having to describe the world that is encountered by the mind.
If the mind stops describing the world, and one continues to look at the world, they might still be processing what things are at a subconscious level, but it seems to have a consciousness of the world, that it requires description of things.
Upon not describing the world, there is still the possibility of internal thought. Internal thought is not always description. It can range from comparing subjects, to think about the future, to asking oneself a question. A task that might be taken up by a person is to watch there thoughts and categorize them, much like thinking of your thoughts as descriptions. If one were to do this, they might be able to form a categorization of the mental activity.
Why do we describe things? "That is a rock." The thing itself is given a name, and that name has mental associations wherein there are properties in the mind that are alike the object that is being observed. Description, is as if to be in the world, or to be conscious of the world, which brings into itself the emergence of the thought.
These descriptions, like the categories of thought, have categorizes of themselves, linked back in the mind. When a thing is seen, there is often a category that it falls into. The way that it looks, stimulates the categorical contents of the mind. Description is about ontology, of being. A sufficient mode of contacting the ontological world, is through the description process of physics. Size, shape, volume, area, can tell us what a thing is. The thing is, that we observe things easier just by a simple description of properties, and some people are not inclined to observe the world through the eyes of the physics, or mathematics, of it.
Most have a view that I would call "extracting the properties" or "denoting with category." The word rock tells us enough about the rock, since we do not require to understand or think of the rock in any more context than the denotation.
When suddenly we are aroused to description of a thing, that description becomes relevant to our reactions.There are some things which do not have as much as potential to react with as other things. With a rock we might think of moving it, breaking it up into pieces. With a person we might think of asking them not to do or to do something. Thus, the description of things prepare us to react toward the thing.
It is hard to think of how to react to an external phenomena if we do not first describe it at some level of conscious activity. This is to say, when something is not in a person's focus it is harder for them to react towards that thing.
When we have described the ontology of something, we can go onto describe the future or our reactions with the object. Thus the object of description becomes an object of ends which too can be described.
Describing the possible ends of the object, is to impute the object with movement of a categorical kind. For anything to be a teleological description one must think of the objects movement or self's movement in relation to that thing.
This connection isn't always how things happen. Description without teleological reactive thoughts is possible. It is possible to have an aesthetic judgment as part of a description, or to judge things based on "secondary" descriptions. For example: A denotation is "trees" description of parts would be "branches", "color" and secondary description would be "complexity", "isolation."
The denotation, the first and second description might tell us what might be done to increase or decrease the parts or the properties of a thing. We can thus have an idea of these descriptions as an imaginary state where the properties or parts exist in a less or more extreme. For example: The denotation of object x, in space y, we can think to have more object x, or to increase or decrease any of the physical properties that we can describe the thing to have.
Imagined property endowment, is a mode of thinking of how to react and change a thing as envisioned by the mind, brought on by combing a non-existing property x of y, to a possible state where x becomes part of the ontology of y. This kind of thinking, as to act, works so by use of the imagination. To of what is not, and to think of how that not can be.
Our actions tells us we can stay in a condition or we can change the conditions. This means we can keep things as is or change things from the not into the is. The is is always the present, and is brought into existence by the "will be."
If the mind stops describing the world, and one continues to look at the world, they might still be processing what things are at a subconscious level, but it seems to have a consciousness of the world, that it requires description of things.
Upon not describing the world, there is still the possibility of internal thought. Internal thought is not always description. It can range from comparing subjects, to think about the future, to asking oneself a question. A task that might be taken up by a person is to watch there thoughts and categorize them, much like thinking of your thoughts as descriptions. If one were to do this, they might be able to form a categorization of the mental activity.
Why do we describe things? "That is a rock." The thing itself is given a name, and that name has mental associations wherein there are properties in the mind that are alike the object that is being observed. Description, is as if to be in the world, or to be conscious of the world, which brings into itself the emergence of the thought.
These descriptions, like the categories of thought, have categorizes of themselves, linked back in the mind. When a thing is seen, there is often a category that it falls into. The way that it looks, stimulates the categorical contents of the mind. Description is about ontology, of being. A sufficient mode of contacting the ontological world, is through the description process of physics. Size, shape, volume, area, can tell us what a thing is. The thing is, that we observe things easier just by a simple description of properties, and some people are not inclined to observe the world through the eyes of the physics, or mathematics, of it.
Most have a view that I would call "extracting the properties" or "denoting with category." The word rock tells us enough about the rock, since we do not require to understand or think of the rock in any more context than the denotation.
When suddenly we are aroused to description of a thing, that description becomes relevant to our reactions.There are some things which do not have as much as potential to react with as other things. With a rock we might think of moving it, breaking it up into pieces. With a person we might think of asking them not to do or to do something. Thus, the description of things prepare us to react toward the thing.
It is hard to think of how to react to an external phenomena if we do not first describe it at some level of conscious activity. This is to say, when something is not in a person's focus it is harder for them to react towards that thing.
When we have described the ontology of something, we can go onto describe the future or our reactions with the object. Thus the object of description becomes an object of ends which too can be described.
Describing the possible ends of the object, is to impute the object with movement of a categorical kind. For anything to be a teleological description one must think of the objects movement or self's movement in relation to that thing.
This connection isn't always how things happen. Description without teleological reactive thoughts is possible. It is possible to have an aesthetic judgment as part of a description, or to judge things based on "secondary" descriptions. For example: A denotation is "trees" description of parts would be "branches", "color" and secondary description would be "complexity", "isolation."
The denotation, the first and second description might tell us what might be done to increase or decrease the parts or the properties of a thing. We can thus have an idea of these descriptions as an imaginary state where the properties or parts exist in a less or more extreme. For example: The denotation of object x, in space y, we can think to have more object x, or to increase or decrease any of the physical properties that we can describe the thing to have.
Imagined property endowment, is a mode of thinking of how to react and change a thing as envisioned by the mind, brought on by combing a non-existing property x of y, to a possible state where x becomes part of the ontology of y. This kind of thinking, as to act, works so by use of the imagination. To of what is not, and to think of how that not can be.
Our actions tells us we can stay in a condition or we can change the conditions. This means we can keep things as is or change things from the not into the is. The is is always the present, and is brought into existence by the "will be."
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
What is honesty?
1. Honesty has relation to commitment or promises. When one promises something they may be judged on their honesty, when or when not the have fulfilled what they have promised to do.
2. Honesty also means giving accurate information about an experience. After having done something, instead of promising to do something, a person's honesty can be judged based on whether not they depict an experience accurately.
How does one know when some one is being dishonest?
1) Experiencing or knowing that a person was or wasn't doing something as communicated. For example, one can find out if another person was being honest about their whereabouts through an alibi. This is even so effective at determining truth that it is part of the determining guilt in crime activity.
2) By the person proving that there take on events is accurate. General example: I have x, therefore I was at A.
3) By a person admitting that they were dishonest. A person admitting that they were dishonest, and offering another explanation for things, might not be as valid as way as determining honesty as other methods.
4) Physical indications. People can have tells. For example, when I am lying usually if asked if I am telling the truth I smile when lying. Other tells can be hints of increased nervousness, a sense of the person being deceitful in their communications.
When do people lie?
1) To avoid trouble - People think of others in terms of how they will treat them. When thinking of the possibility of avoiding undesired effects, avoiding punishment, people may try to lie there way out of the consequence.
2) To conceal behaviors of self or other - one might lie so as to conceal behaviors, as to avoid some kind of judgment, not just punishment.
3) To benefit self or others - It may be in one's benefit or another benefit to lie, in situations where life is threatened. Some humans have lied to save the life others, while other people may have lied to gain something they couldn't without concealing the ordeal. Right or wrong lies, aren't as relevant in a world where we lie because of how it will effect others or ourselves. People themselves, may have their own code of morals, which work to determine when it is acceptable or rejectable to lie.
4) To tease - it might considered humorous or a reason to laugh at people that can be easily think as they are lied to.
Honesty as expectation - The expectation of dishonesty/honesty comes from frequency of person A being honest/dishonest.
Honesty as a characteristic - Being honest becomes the characteristic of integrity.
Learned honesty - Children may be taught not to lie, or commanded. It also may be a conditioned way of communicating.
People can also be bribed to tell the truth or bribed to lie.
2. Honesty also means giving accurate information about an experience. After having done something, instead of promising to do something, a person's honesty can be judged based on whether not they depict an experience accurately.
How does one know when some one is being dishonest?
1) Experiencing or knowing that a person was or wasn't doing something as communicated. For example, one can find out if another person was being honest about their whereabouts through an alibi. This is even so effective at determining truth that it is part of the determining guilt in crime activity.
2) By the person proving that there take on events is accurate. General example: I have x, therefore I was at A.
3) By a person admitting that they were dishonest. A person admitting that they were dishonest, and offering another explanation for things, might not be as valid as way as determining honesty as other methods.
4) Physical indications. People can have tells. For example, when I am lying usually if asked if I am telling the truth I smile when lying. Other tells can be hints of increased nervousness, a sense of the person being deceitful in their communications.
When do people lie?
1) To avoid trouble - People think of others in terms of how they will treat them. When thinking of the possibility of avoiding undesired effects, avoiding punishment, people may try to lie there way out of the consequence.
2) To conceal behaviors of self or other - one might lie so as to conceal behaviors, as to avoid some kind of judgment, not just punishment.
3) To benefit self or others - It may be in one's benefit or another benefit to lie, in situations where life is threatened. Some humans have lied to save the life others, while other people may have lied to gain something they couldn't without concealing the ordeal. Right or wrong lies, aren't as relevant in a world where we lie because of how it will effect others or ourselves. People themselves, may have their own code of morals, which work to determine when it is acceptable or rejectable to lie.
4) To tease - it might considered humorous or a reason to laugh at people that can be easily think as they are lied to.
Honesty as expectation - The expectation of dishonesty/honesty comes from frequency of person A being honest/dishonest.
Honesty as a characteristic - Being honest becomes the characteristic of integrity.
Learned honesty - Children may be taught not to lie, or commanded. It also may be a conditioned way of communicating.
People can also be bribed to tell the truth or bribed to lie.
The Flux of Order -
Disorder might be conceived of as greater outcomes existing than another state where less outcomes existed.
Disorder might also mean a greater number of possibilities permitted or allowed compared to a state where the possibilities were less.
One can observe through the lenses of chaos and order, when observing some new behavior, that behavior tends to be conceived of as chaotic, when old behavior patterns emerge these are said to be orderly. What the body systems are satisfied with are patterns that are orderly, feeling comfortable in the established regularity, decreasing entropy. Some people have trouble moving out of their comfort zones, because they will encounter a new experience that disturbs their equilibrium.
1) Focus : My first blog talked about decreasing disorder as a effect of focusing, or single-mindedness. The rule is, that as you decrease the outcomes you have in mind, the more probable the outcomes left are, and therefore the more order arises. The complexity of a life may be thought of in terms of the number of outcomes the person partakes in achieving on a daily basis.
2) Environment : I have also come across the ideas that order is the result of organizing your environment. It can be part of your identity to do chores that organize your environment. It might even be part of your occupation to organize things. The mind can be cleared of disorder in having to repeat organizing the environment in a "desired and repetitious pattern." This might sound complex, but its as simple as putting cups in cupboard.
3) Identity : Order is the result of the behaviors which consist as part of your identity. The behaviors that consist of your identity are a part of routine or habits, and these can be thought of fairly clearly, as emerging from your center. One can depict this emergence through a rough sketch up of this idea, and use it to add in possible behaviors that one wishes to have become their actual life, or eliminate behaviors that one wants to no longer experience.
4) Social : It might be thought that if you have relations with people you know, that you can decrease the disorder of your social life by limiting your relations to a number of people. Social life always becomes more disordered as a result of increasing the number of relations you have. The more variation in those people, the more they are not alike, the more complexity that arises out of your center.
5) Government : Order also exists as a governmental necessity. The very laws that are accepted, and the behaviors that come of them are a part of maintaining an enforced order. This order can be replaced through the majority instigating the order, but not if the government and those giving the orders, is stronger than the majority. In this sense it might be in the greatest of the interest of the people to ensure that the majority always can superseded the laws of the government.
Establishing laws that are enforced through the forces of punishment are a way of ensuring that the world created from this order continue to exist. Without a central government or laws and rights existing therein, anarchy as it were, would be no more than disorder.
Currently, we live in the order of Survival: live or die, and our powers to determine the actual world are minute, very centered to ourselves.
Even in anarchy, the powers that produce life and produce death would have existence as they do now, but in such a lawless state, there would be no justice, no being held accountable, and there would be unleashing of the malevolent and aggressive, upon society. For these reasons I oppose anarchist society, a state of societal disorder.
The Leviathan (1651), in which Thomas Hobbes defended absolute monarchy and justified centralized government as necessary because the condition of Man in the apolitical state of nature is a “war of all against all”, for which reason the lives of men and women are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” without the political organization of people and resources.
This is not to say any society with laws does not lead to individual expressions of unwarranted aggression, but when people exist within the boundaries of enforced law and order, they are less likely to behave with misconduct towards their fellow citizens.
Anarchist extremists would do away with all human rights, including rights and legalities upholding personal property, ownership, imprisonment, the entire justice system, the separation of powers, as these by their very principle are law bound. Looking into past examples of such people or tribes, we may refer to the Indians or the Vikings. There will be violent human beings in any large society, but abiding by laws of the state of non-harm, enforcing security over those that act against the property, well-being, and lives of others, and by limiting (blocking) sensory consumption of violent interactions violence can be mitigated; furthermore by making certain drugs that reduce the quality of life illegal, benefits the health and productivity of the nation's citizens.
Disorder might also mean a greater number of possibilities permitted or allowed compared to a state where the possibilities were less.
One can observe through the lenses of chaos and order, when observing some new behavior, that behavior tends to be conceived of as chaotic, when old behavior patterns emerge these are said to be orderly. What the body systems are satisfied with are patterns that are orderly, feeling comfortable in the established regularity, decreasing entropy. Some people have trouble moving out of their comfort zones, because they will encounter a new experience that disturbs their equilibrium.
1) Focus : My first blog talked about decreasing disorder as a effect of focusing, or single-mindedness. The rule is, that as you decrease the outcomes you have in mind, the more probable the outcomes left are, and therefore the more order arises. The complexity of a life may be thought of in terms of the number of outcomes the person partakes in achieving on a daily basis.
2) Environment : I have also come across the ideas that order is the result of organizing your environment. It can be part of your identity to do chores that organize your environment. It might even be part of your occupation to organize things. The mind can be cleared of disorder in having to repeat organizing the environment in a "desired and repetitious pattern." This might sound complex, but its as simple as putting cups in cupboard.
3) Identity : Order is the result of the behaviors which consist as part of your identity. The behaviors that consist of your identity are a part of routine or habits, and these can be thought of fairly clearly, as emerging from your center. One can depict this emergence through a rough sketch up of this idea, and use it to add in possible behaviors that one wishes to have become their actual life, or eliminate behaviors that one wants to no longer experience.
4) Social : It might be thought that if you have relations with people you know, that you can decrease the disorder of your social life by limiting your relations to a number of people. Social life always becomes more disordered as a result of increasing the number of relations you have. The more variation in those people, the more they are not alike, the more complexity that arises out of your center.
5) Government : Order also exists as a governmental necessity. The very laws that are accepted, and the behaviors that come of them are a part of maintaining an enforced order. This order can be replaced through the majority instigating the order, but not if the government and those giving the orders, is stronger than the majority. In this sense it might be in the greatest of the interest of the people to ensure that the majority always can superseded the laws of the government.
Establishing laws that are enforced through the forces of punishment are a way of ensuring that the world created from this order continue to exist. Without a central government or laws and rights existing therein, anarchy as it were, would be no more than disorder.
Currently, we live in the order of Survival: live or die, and our powers to determine the actual world are minute, very centered to ourselves.
Even in anarchy, the powers that produce life and produce death would have existence as they do now, but in such a lawless state, there would be no justice, no being held accountable, and there would be unleashing of the malevolent and aggressive, upon society. For these reasons I oppose anarchist society, a state of societal disorder.
The Leviathan (1651), in which Thomas Hobbes defended absolute monarchy and justified centralized government as necessary because the condition of Man in the apolitical state of nature is a “war of all against all”, for which reason the lives of men and women are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” without the political organization of people and resources.
This is not to say any society with laws does not lead to individual expressions of unwarranted aggression, but when people exist within the boundaries of enforced law and order, they are less likely to behave with misconduct towards their fellow citizens.
Anarchist extremists would do away with all human rights, including rights and legalities upholding personal property, ownership, imprisonment, the entire justice system, the separation of powers, as these by their very principle are law bound. Looking into past examples of such people or tribes, we may refer to the Indians or the Vikings. There will be violent human beings in any large society, but abiding by laws of the state of non-harm, enforcing security over those that act against the property, well-being, and lives of others, and by limiting (blocking) sensory consumption of violent interactions violence can be mitigated; furthermore by making certain drugs that reduce the quality of life illegal, benefits the health and productivity of the nation's citizens.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Expectation
Expectation has the same origins as commitment, being intention. It can also come from "knowledge of". Both will be touched on in the following blog.
Likewise it can be classified using:
1) For self
2) For other
3) Of physical results
1) Intentions don't become a self-expectation till one agrees on intending specific consequences. Multiple intents as thoughts of decisions don't have to be expectations. For example: I can describe an intention but that doesn't mean you have to expect that decision of yourself or other. This means, like commitment, expectation exists from intention and has consistency dependent on conformity or rejection of the intention. The more conformity to intention, trust, acceptance of, place on the intention the more one expects self or other to manifest or act out the intention.
Expectations exist as a product of A) Repeated behaviors B) Expressed agreement to intend. C) Conclusions of self based on personal "thought as," or "for."
When B exists others expectations take on more validity and the more the more the will (Ex: I will do x definitively) imposed the stronger the expectation will tend to be.
It is useful to ask a person what they will do so as to expect based on expressed intention.
2) A) One might expect others as well as themselves to do a certain thing because of frequency of past behaviors. People are pronse to expect your personality and behaviors based on past experiences.
Non-routine expectations or as they are intentions, are possible applications. A person may even agree to a non-routine behavior. People might look forward to non-routine behaviors, as forms of art, or even breaks in frequent routine, as in vacation, as some examples.
3) Physical expectations are a product of:
A) Cause and effect laws, B) Concreteness C) In-group-similarity D) Frequency and repetition.
Errors can arise from D, in personal or social life. Example: "driver" (p) "uses clutch" (q). New car "without clutch" still may manifest the same habit. This phenomena is called latent inhibition, and may also be a form of bias (ex: I think person A, only dresses as x).
What is the difference between knowing and expectation? There is a simple difference, seen in the conflict of "is" and "will be." Direct experience as causing similarity between the properties of mind/world is "knowledge", where as prediction as thought is expectation. Ex: John sees that his friend is lifting weights, and knows this. He expects that he WILL be lifting weights on another time.
Questions that may come from this:
1) Why can habits be stronger than rational/beneficial behaviors/ends?
2) What is honesty?
3) What is routine?
Likewise it can be classified using:
1) For self
2) For other
3) Of physical results
1) Intentions don't become a self-expectation till one agrees on intending specific consequences. Multiple intents as thoughts of decisions don't have to be expectations. For example: I can describe an intention but that doesn't mean you have to expect that decision of yourself or other. This means, like commitment, expectation exists from intention and has consistency dependent on conformity or rejection of the intention. The more conformity to intention, trust, acceptance of, place on the intention the more one expects self or other to manifest or act out the intention.
Expectations exist as a product of A) Repeated behaviors B) Expressed agreement to intend. C) Conclusions of self based on personal "thought as," or "for."
When B exists others expectations take on more validity and the more the more the will (Ex: I will do x definitively) imposed the stronger the expectation will tend to be.
It is useful to ask a person what they will do so as to expect based on expressed intention.
2) A) One might expect others as well as themselves to do a certain thing because of frequency of past behaviors. People are pronse to expect your personality and behaviors based on past experiences.
Non-routine expectations or as they are intentions, are possible applications. A person may even agree to a non-routine behavior. People might look forward to non-routine behaviors, as forms of art, or even breaks in frequent routine, as in vacation, as some examples.
3) Physical expectations are a product of:
A) Cause and effect laws, B) Concreteness C) In-group-similarity D) Frequency and repetition.
Errors can arise from D, in personal or social life. Example: "driver" (p) "uses clutch" (q). New car "without clutch" still may manifest the same habit. This phenomena is called latent inhibition, and may also be a form of bias (ex: I think person A, only dresses as x).
What is the difference between knowing and expectation? There is a simple difference, seen in the conflict of "is" and "will be." Direct experience as causing similarity between the properties of mind/world is "knowledge", where as prediction as thought is expectation. Ex: John sees that his friend is lifting weights, and knows this. He expects that he WILL be lifting weights on another time.
Questions that may come from this:
1) Why can habits be stronger than rational/beneficial behaviors/ends?
2) What is honesty?
3) What is routine?
Commitment - Question for 11/17/12
What is a commitment?
An intention that is fixed, is a commitment as so far as it remains fixed. Before a commitment exists it must emerge as an intention. It can emerge from desire, or thinking of ends which bring about desire.
Desires may be connected back to need, but when they are connected to wants they take on more variation. We know that intention is biological and material, and a compact relation exists between the two, a relation that permits for mental and material fulfillment.
The intention becomes fixed as it occupies the time of the person, in their life. It exists in the mind till it is fulfilled or dropped. Example: John commits to not eating a certain amount of carbs daily. This intention as a commitment is long-lasting, but only so far as it continues to what is thought. The commitment becomes a part of a person's actual life, meaning that it causes the existence of the peron.
We could compare two people, and observe one with commitment and one without, and in doing so observe how the commitment itself effects the person.
A commitment is similar in nature, to obsession or even addiction, as it can take control of the life which contains and acts for the commitment.
The commitment is either:
1) For self for x.
2) For other for x.
The request for x can become a commitment. This means that a person is a result of for, a person can be x, by being the for, the cause of x. Just as materials can be for a result people can be used for a result. This is using a thing/person to achieve end and actuality.
The request causes the desire to emerge in the one or the other, if it doesn't this is because it does not cause desire, and thereby is rejected for some subconscious reason(s). In this way person A can promise person B a thing for their actions. This creates two possible commitment: Person A doing x, for B, and person B giving or doing y for A, after or before A does x. In this way commitment might be disguised what might be called a favor.
When something interferes with commitment, the interfering variable may cause the commitment to be lost, or through conformity to commitment the intention is continued, none-the-less.
An intention that is fixed, is a commitment as so far as it remains fixed. Before a commitment exists it must emerge as an intention. It can emerge from desire, or thinking of ends which bring about desire.
Desires may be connected back to need, but when they are connected to wants they take on more variation. We know that intention is biological and material, and a compact relation exists between the two, a relation that permits for mental and material fulfillment.
The intention becomes fixed as it occupies the time of the person, in their life. It exists in the mind till it is fulfilled or dropped. Example: John commits to not eating a certain amount of carbs daily. This intention as a commitment is long-lasting, but only so far as it continues to what is thought. The commitment becomes a part of a person's actual life, meaning that it causes the existence of the peron.
We could compare two people, and observe one with commitment and one without, and in doing so observe how the commitment itself effects the person.
A commitment is similar in nature, to obsession or even addiction, as it can take control of the life which contains and acts for the commitment.
The commitment is either:
1) For self for x.
2) For other for x.
The request for x can become a commitment. This means that a person is a result of for, a person can be x, by being the for, the cause of x. Just as materials can be for a result people can be used for a result. This is using a thing/person to achieve end and actuality.
The request causes the desire to emerge in the one or the other, if it doesn't this is because it does not cause desire, and thereby is rejected for some subconscious reason(s). In this way person A can promise person B a thing for their actions. This creates two possible commitment: Person A doing x, for B, and person B giving or doing y for A, after or before A does x. In this way commitment might be disguised what might be called a favor.
When something interferes with commitment, the interfering variable may cause the commitment to be lost, or through conformity to commitment the intention is continued, none-the-less.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Staying with a Question a Day
The idea of this blog, is for me to stay with either a proposition and possible questions or a single question and work around it from its center.
Todays Question: Why am I asking a question a day?
The self-established commitment to contemplate a single question in a day is to increase insight that can be extracted through contemplation. This is possible contingent on the duration scheduled; just as one can be doing any practice by scheduling a time in which the behavior or practice is done.
By taking the task up, one can push aside the greater disorder and lack of clarity that emerges in erratic thought. The question may not be relevant to your goals, but if your goals are increasing clarity and communicating your insight, the question has some relevance to your life, but not as much relevance as other possible questions relating to more rational pursuits. These being, fulfilling your needs or determining what you can do to fulfill them.
While attending to a single task, as posited here, you might be doing multiple tasks and creating the possibilities of future tasks derived from the mere act of writing down or taking notes on the single mental or physical task.
Doing this exercise might be compared to playing the piano. The notes as words become the song. As the question is repeated the words fall into sequence. There is no known music sheet at first, but then you formulate one that can be played later. Not only can it be played later, you might take a sequence from it and use it to create another song.
The very act of questioning suggests finding answers, increasing information and knowledge. Does a question mean a search for knowledge? What am I searching for asking why I am asking a question everyday? What knowledge comes from the answer?
There must be particular meaning, dependent on the content of the question or answer. A conclusion can be reached, using the formula if x, than what?
If we suppose the search for knowledge is much like playing a sequence of notes it is either random or with order which this song is being constructed.
We return again to relevance. When the question is "what is x" answering the question is to refer to x, and offer information concerning the subject (x). When the information is off topic, and has no relation to the subject, than the answer is irrelevant. The question of what, has to have an answer that serves to fulfill the question.
"What" is a question-function which asks for information about the qualities of a thing, as in what is x, although the question can be reconfigured to ask about teleology (cause and effect), as in what is x for? Therefore, the answer depends on question-function and the subject contained in the question. A question with subject A, asks for information of A. By asking questions on a daily basis, through introspection or reflection I am gathering information on any subject that emerges.
"Why" is a question for information of cause and effect of A, why is reduction of past causes or a projection of possible results.
In other publications I dissected question-functions, and here I am writing that "why" can be split into two temporal words of "for" and "because". All question functions exist as cognitive functions, and give us a crude look at the human mind. These question functions are evolved capacities.
Why I am asking a question a day comes down to:
1.) Because - Time, evolution, mental function, desire.
2.) For - Information, readers, clarity, decrease in erratic thoughts/disorder.
As I ask a question a day, it is because mental function, and for the obtainment of the ends coming from the question. If I do not want the results, that I might as well stop the cause, which is to ask a question a day. If I consider my subconscious decisions or desires, I might also not want these results. How do I know I want or don't want to ask a question a day?
Is there anything in my mind to determine whether or not I make a decision? This is another question, though it is relevant to my life, when asking if I desire or not desire the consequence of 1.
Other questions that may come from this post:
1) What is because and for?
2) Does choice only come from the existence of non-contradicting intentions? How do have an intention without contradicting it through its antithesis?
3) What are question-functions?
4) What are some functions that have evolve? Name the functions and determine why they were naturally selected.
5) Can intelligence exist without need?
Todays Question: Why am I asking a question a day?
The self-established commitment to contemplate a single question in a day is to increase insight that can be extracted through contemplation. This is possible contingent on the duration scheduled; just as one can be doing any practice by scheduling a time in which the behavior or practice is done.
By taking the task up, one can push aside the greater disorder and lack of clarity that emerges in erratic thought. The question may not be relevant to your goals, but if your goals are increasing clarity and communicating your insight, the question has some relevance to your life, but not as much relevance as other possible questions relating to more rational pursuits. These being, fulfilling your needs or determining what you can do to fulfill them.
While attending to a single task, as posited here, you might be doing multiple tasks and creating the possibilities of future tasks derived from the mere act of writing down or taking notes on the single mental or physical task.
Doing this exercise might be compared to playing the piano. The notes as words become the song. As the question is repeated the words fall into sequence. There is no known music sheet at first, but then you formulate one that can be played later. Not only can it be played later, you might take a sequence from it and use it to create another song.
The very act of questioning suggests finding answers, increasing information and knowledge. Does a question mean a search for knowledge? What am I searching for asking why I am asking a question everyday? What knowledge comes from the answer?
There must be particular meaning, dependent on the content of the question or answer. A conclusion can be reached, using the formula if x, than what?
If we suppose the search for knowledge is much like playing a sequence of notes it is either random or with order which this song is being constructed.
We return again to relevance. When the question is "what is x" answering the question is to refer to x, and offer information concerning the subject (x). When the information is off topic, and has no relation to the subject, than the answer is irrelevant. The question of what, has to have an answer that serves to fulfill the question.
"What" is a question-function which asks for information about the qualities of a thing, as in what is x, although the question can be reconfigured to ask about teleology (cause and effect), as in what is x for? Therefore, the answer depends on question-function and the subject contained in the question. A question with subject A, asks for information of A. By asking questions on a daily basis, through introspection or reflection I am gathering information on any subject that emerges.
"Why" is a question for information of cause and effect of A, why is reduction of past causes or a projection of possible results.
In other publications I dissected question-functions, and here I am writing that "why" can be split into two temporal words of "for" and "because". All question functions exist as cognitive functions, and give us a crude look at the human mind. These question functions are evolved capacities.
Why I am asking a question a day comes down to:
1.) Because - Time, evolution, mental function, desire.
2.) For - Information, readers, clarity, decrease in erratic thoughts/disorder.
As I ask a question a day, it is because mental function, and for the obtainment of the ends coming from the question. If I do not want the results, that I might as well stop the cause, which is to ask a question a day. If I consider my subconscious decisions or desires, I might also not want these results. How do I know I want or don't want to ask a question a day?
Is there anything in my mind to determine whether or not I make a decision? This is another question, though it is relevant to my life, when asking if I desire or not desire the consequence of 1.
Other questions that may come from this post:
1) What is because and for?
2) Does choice only come from the existence of non-contradicting intentions? How do have an intention without contradicting it through its antithesis?
3) What are question-functions?
4) What are some functions that have evolve? Name the functions and determine why they were naturally selected.
5) Can intelligence exist without need?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)