5th page
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
While it may have dawned on some readers, for those that it hasn't, let me attempt to explain the idea of the "1- 2- Many" philosophy in a more succinct way: That by using examples from biology as well as other subjects one can, in an orderly fashion, reveal both practical and metaphysical applications which can constitute and establish a "Science of Philosophy" (as opposed to the current styles of "philosophical science") because of using both scientifically formulated and mathematically exercised constructs of presently determined logic; and not just mere (philosophical, religious and political) suppositions that go untested— because it goes unrealized that testing procedures themselves exhibit the same pattern and is therefore a formula by which one may understand the basic, the fundamental, the essence, the principle, the underlying blue-print (Architectural draft) of all ideological languages (language of all ideologies) of all Philosophies, Religions, and Sciences, however they are labeled in whatever culture by whomever is defining them.
Here is a short list of how philosophy is currently viewed (taken from the Britannica under selected references):
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Education
- Philosophy of Physics
- Philosophy of Law
- Philosophy of Language
- Philosophy of History
- Philosophy of Common sense
- Philosophy of As if
- Philosophy of Mind
- Philosophy of Art
- Philosophy of Ethics
- Philosophy of Music
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Continental philosophy
- Western Philosophy
- Medieval philosophy
- Islamic philosophy
- Contemporary philosophy
- Political Philosophy (as opposed to the pseudo-science called Political Science)
- Analytic philosophy
- Arabic philosophy
- Philosophy, Western
- Indian philosophy
- Jewish philosophy
- Process philosophy
- Chinese philosophy
Whereas the word "philosophy" sometimes comes in the first or last "extremity" positions reflecting a "1/Many" theme (like prefixes and suffixes); an "infix" or centrality affixed to this currency of dichotomization (in order to correctly provide evidence for a "1- 2- Many" proposition), could be stated with the word Philosophy in an uncustomary suffix placement with the word "Science": Science of Philosophy. Then again, we might use "Scientific Philosophy" since much of what is done already could be called "Philosophical Sciencing" or "Philosophical Scientific-ology", or "Philosophical Scientification" but we are heading towards the area of specious species as "Scientology" or nearby this called "Christian Science", both of which are laughable terms... though not the terms themselves but how they are put to use.
Affix: a grammatical element that is combined with a word, stem, or phrase to produce derived and inflected forms. There are three types of affixes: prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. A prefix occurs at the beginning of a word or stem (sub-mit, pre-determine, un-willing); a suffix at the end (wonder-ful, depend-ent, act-ion); and an infix occurs in the middle. English has no infixes, but they are found in American Indian languages, Greek, Tagalog, and elsewhere. An example from (the Filipino language) Tagalog is the alteration of the form suilat "a writing," to the form sinuilat, "that which was written," through the addition of an infix, -in-. Examples of English inflectional suffixes are illustrated by the -s of "cats," the -er of "longer," and the -ed of "asked." ("affix." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
It is of some interest to note that there exist three types of affixes but the English language doesn't have any. So, if the 3 are a commonality of human conceptualization, does it mean that the absence of a 3rd item is missing or taken up by some other behavioral activity, or overlapped with some other language/consciousness attribution?
Those who come in defense of Philosophy as already being a science in its own right might well cite that many, if not all ideas stem from some type and level of philosophy. Yet, in as much as Philosophy has played a role in various ideologies both in and out of Academia, it is not an established "science" per se, just because it is in use by multiple sciences. Any formal or informal thinking can be credited with being called a philosophy, even museful day dreaming or how best to spend one's paycheck, if not also how one is to toilet themselves in the larger sense of using a restroom as a facility for multiple activities of personal hygiene and attentiveness. However if we take the following definition of science to be an adequate and accurate one, then we must note that Philosophy fails in one of the characteristics:
Science: any system of knowledge that is concerned with:
- The physical world and its phenomena, and...
- That which entails unbiased observations, and...
- That which entails systematic experimentation.
In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws. ("science." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Knowledge is based on a Dichotomy:
- A Priori Knowledge: In Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences
- A posteriori knowledge: which derives from experience.
The Latin phrases a priori ("from what is before") and a posteriori ("from what is after") were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects. ("a priori knowledge." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
True can be summed up as a Dichotomy also:
- That which is true (based on testing, belief, consensus)
- That which is not true (based on testing, belief, consensus)
Reality is much like truth, capable of being reduced to two standards.
Philosophy as a Science unto itself, does not conduct experiments in a laboratory, whether it is one inside a building on in "the field". It conducts "thought experiments" using the tools of other subjects from which to derive its thought experiments. If we say the word "philosophy" is some cultural attribute to assign to a given type of thinking, what then is that type if it is not defined in some other subject's context? Is it to be accredited with some type of distinction that can not be a "stand alone" feature, or must it too be assigned as a feature of philosophy by being entitled the Philosophy of Philosophy and not the alternative of the "Science of Philosophy? If you use the terms "Science of Philosophy" as an internet search term, multiple entries arise displaying the idea of "Philosophy of Science" but you may not encounter more than one or two whose authors make a sincere attempt to address the actual idea related to a "Science of Philosophy". In several cases, even speaking with "professional" philosophers you will encounter the suggestion to look at a given research area involving some established science, as if any idea involving a "science of philosophy" be viewed in terms of a symbiotic relationship. Yet, a Science of Philosophy can be established by recognizing that present models of it (in the various types of symbiotic relationship with other subjects), attempts to use the known basic, fundamental primary, patterns thought to be the originating source for a given idea within one or another field of study... be it anthropology, medicine, biology, physics, mathematics, etc...
The idea of suggesting that Philosophy is a Science because of its usage by and invaluable service to other subjects, may suggest to some interpretations to mean it is a Language, it is a mathematics, it is a spirituality, it is a physical being, it is a consciousness, it has a body, mind, soul, it is a person deserving of the rights any and all beings should be offered, etc... One of which is to be set free from the indentured servitude it has been illegally sold as a slave by a currency of thought taken for granted, like so many civilizations which had no laws against slavery because it was a way of life thought to be fit and proper. Yes! Let us say. Philosophy is placed on an auction block year after year by the wig wearing lot of academics in retain the consciousness of a former age where the enslavement of ideas, ideals, creeds, customs, and numerous other traditions was an accepted means of perpetuating the views they grew up in and had learned to carve our a social niche' for from which their own kind, their elite clansmen could.. all the better, survive and thrive. Though some readers would outright reject such a view, it should be considered nonetheless as part of a philosophical leaning towards an imaginative metaphorical guesstimation or presupposition, educated or otherwise.
There has been no Science of Philosophy because former philosophers could not see the fundamental pattern existing below all fundamental patterns. They have been like so very many who look upon DNA as a fundamental structure and yet do not see the pattern of it cyclicity among other fundamentals, thus giving relevance to the idea that what is being witnessed is a family of fundamental patterns whose origin remains hidden, because such philosophers have not been able to think of how to apply the notion of genealogy to them. All the fundamental patterns repeat themselves in modes and manners incorporating a fundamental "1- 2- Many" pattern. While some variations are more elaborate than others, and some use symbolic forms of referencing which appear like cryptic runes, they are all a body of languages with a mother tongue. Like the Rosetta stone, Behistun Rock formation and Galle inscription, each of which displays three languages, the fundamental pattern to be used to establish a "Science of Philosophy" also involves a pattern-of-three.
There is an underlying science to philosophy but it has either been overlooked or the attempts to create a working model have fallen short for the lack of an observable pattern that could be applied to every single subject... or at least most of them... since nature itself creates exceptions whose presence defies the typical model of analysis. In a sense, the current streams of Philosophy have been kept in an antiquated mode of thinking just as might be the case if Astronomy remained in the realm of Astrology, or Chemistry remained in the realm of Alchemy, or Sociology remained stuck in the mind of those observing the social organization of ants, or Accounting was stuck in a single-entry mode of record keeping, or Physics was stuck in some antiquated philosophy of "atomism", or Language was stuck in the activity of making a list of words, or Medicine was stuck in a Witch-doctoring mode of application, or Football remained in a state of brutality during its early stages of development:
...The impulse to kick a round object has been present as long as humans have been humans. The first game of football was played when two or more people, acting on this impulse, competed in an attempt to kick a round object in one direction rather than in another. Evidence of organized football games in Greece and China goes back more than 2,000 years, but historians have no idea how these games were played. Claims that football of some sort was played throughout the Roman Empire are plausible, but the game of harpastum, often cited in support of these claims, seems to have involved throwing a ball rather than kicking it. Although kicking games were played by the indigenous peoples of North America, they were much less popular than the stickball games that are the origin of the modern game of lacrosse.
The folk football games of the 14th and 15th centuries, which were usually played at Shrovetide or Easter, may have had their origins in pagan fertility rites celebrating the return of spring. They were tumultuous affairs. When village competed against village, kicking, throwing, and carrying a wooden or leather ball (or inflated animal bladder) across fields and over streams, through narrow gateways and narrower streets, everyone was involved—men and women, adults and children, rich and poor, laity and clergy. The chaotic contest ended when some particularly robust or skillful villager managed to send the ball through the portal of the opposing village's parish church. When folk football was confined within a single village, the sides were typically formed of the married versus the unmarried, a division which suggests the game's origins in fertility ritual.
The game was violent. The French version, known as soule, was described by Michel Bouet in Signification du sport (1968) as "a veritable combat for possession of the ball," in which the participants struggled "like dogs fighting over a bone." The British version, which has been researched more thoroughly than any other, was, according to Barbarians, Gentlemen and Players (1979) by Eric Dunning and Kenneth Sheard, "a pleasurable form…of excitement akin to that aroused in battle."
Not surprisingly, most of the information about medieval folk football is derived from legal documents. Edward II banned the game in 1314, and his royal successors repeated the prohibition in 1349, 1389, 1401, and 1423, all in a vain attempt to deprive their disobedient subjects of their disorderly pleasure. Despite the bans, records of criminal trials continue to refer to lives lost and property destroyed in the course of an annual football game. The most detailed account, however, is Richard Carew's description of "hurling to goales," from his Survey of Cornwall (1602).
That British folk football did not become appreciably more civilized with the arrival of the Renaissance is suggested by Sir Thomas Elyot's condemnation in The Governour (1537). He lamented the games "beastely fury, and extreme violence." Even James I, who defended the legitimacy of traditional English pastimes when they were condemned by the Puritans, sought to discourage his subjects from indulging in folk football. He wrote in Basilikon Doron; or, His Majesties Instructions to His Dearest Sonne, Henry the Prince (1603) that the "rough and violent" game was "meeter for mameing than making able the [players] thereof."... ("football." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Hence, from the above truncated excerpt, one might well wonder why we have any wars, except that those who do engage in wars don't have a suitable "rough and tumble" sport to be used as a substitute. For example, there is no Inter-National football game existing between Russia and Ukraine or China and the Rest of the world, or between African countries, etc... "Competition in the Marketplace" does not resolve issues of expression involving cyclical clan-involved hunting expeditions (involving sacrifice, bloodletting, tattooing (uniform insignia, body marking, flag expression, etc...) which appear to require some exercised recurrence... if even on small, non-blood-letting occasions such as seen by the commercially staged "Black Friday" free-for-alls which are viewed as normal and natural, but need to be looked at as exercises of mob-rule and allowed loosening of civility. Such "hunting" exercises as coerced "holiday shopping events", sports and wars are extremes which can be profiled in a "1- 2- Many" theme; with the extremes of winning a war and losing a war or prisoner/non-prisoner events being expressed associations to the extremes, and the central position being played out in various military (or financial budget) "strategies" (which we can alternatively describe as algorithms, blueprints, architectural drafts, equations, etc...)
Every single person has an exercised Philosophy, whether they describe it as a belief, a view, an opinion, a rule-of-thumb, an instinct, a way of life, a logic, strategy, game plan, business strategy, etc., or don't even reach a point in their life that brings them to a moment in which they are thus reflective enough to describe themselves in a manner as being philosophical. Some people appear to be more philosophically inclined than others but don't realize they are until someone... or more than one person points out that they are being philosophical at a given moment, and do not themselves realize how frequent they person engages in philosophical commentary and ideas. In fact, the reader of this page may well be the needed Huxley (for Darwin) or Max Planck (for Einstein) in defending and supporting this new Science of Philosophy.
What you are learning when you invest time and energy in understanding the "1- 2- Many" perspective, is a source code that has multiple applications in different subject areas. It expresses an upper limit, a lower limit and the central position of an equation (often with two sides like a duality, or dichotomy or dyad, or dualism, etc...). For example, in some instances you will readily see someone having an upper limit such as a desire for wealth and a lower limit such as a desire to stay away from poverty. In between a person wrestles with different strategies, different tactics, different equations of how to reach a goal that may change over time... but they may embrace a philosophy that is too rigid, whereby they become upset or worse. For example, a person starts and maintains getting what they think is a lot of money and then looks for some "investment" (another philosophy so-to-speak) of how to either make more (bigger, higher) money or acquire some (higher) position, a bigger house, etc... The change from wanting to make money as an upper goal to now striving for something else is like a person wanting to reach an ever higher level of consciousness... to transcend one level to reach a higher one. However, if their plan falls through because they are adopting the philosophy of a knee-jerk reaction, they may be devastated. This same pattern takes place on the cellular level, where cellular functioning outside the workable parameters can create a mutation or even abort a fetus. We can see transitional states of when viewing the changing states of matter which can be used as a metaphor which describes a 1- 2- Many (Upper limit- Centrality- Lower limit):
However, please be forewarned: If you use this philosophy you will symbolically strip the ideological garments, their beards, beads, hair style, tattoos, mantras, symbols, etc., off any and all beliefs you use it on to expose the similarity of their belief structure with multiple other views in and out of religion and philosophy (thereby demeaning and exposing the true, lesser value of the believed-in uniqueness of their belief) which can not be concealed by language, ceremony, tradition, civil laws, government edict, racial or gender expectations, cultural practices or Nationalized observances. Their true identity (with all its nastiness, crudeness, vulgarity, greed, etc... as opposed to all the typically professed and publicly exhibited virtues extolled as a preeminent righteousness) will be revealed as well as any hypocritical flaw structured into a belief system based primarily on rationalization. It is a system of rationalization you may have grown up in with devised expectations you are required to believe as have others before you because from this has emerged a culture which uses subtle and overt forms of coercion and enforcement for you to comply..., to think as the reigning leadership thinks so that they can retain their positions of authority, and others their positions of submission because they are otherwise too ignorant and insecure to think and act on their own without the constant yoke of guidance like so many beasts of burden and endured servants or slaves. Will you arm your mind with such a tool knowing that it can be used as a weapon if you are called upon by your conscience to wield it as such?
If so, then gather up thy steed, thy shield, thy sword, thy lance, thy chain mail or plate armour and prepare to ride against windmills, dragons or other fanciful creatures will be placed into our way as intended digressions, diversions, distractions and otherwise obstacles intended to dismount our charge against those pretending knights of the Philosophical realm that would use deceit, guile, and all forms of Language Sorcery to upend our stay in this gladiatorial arena; where they can not win but by an elixir of philosophy befitting a charlatan of the Black Arts with some imagined Philosopher's stone carved out of a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpetre whose percentages are yet unknown to them so as to create the infamous black power by which to cause our destruction!
Every researcher at one time or another seeks some type of beginning, or fundamental nature, or basic structure that we can call a search for a source code in their respective field of interest. For example, those who want to know what may have been a "Mother Tongue" are describing an interest in unraveling the information and clues they have of trying to find the beginning of a language of group of languages such as the Indo-European family. There are those in physics trying to find some source of some energy or other phenomena. Some in the past sought out the source of the Nile river, or source for a chunk of gold that was found. Others seek the source of some lost civilization. And still others seek to find the source they can call a cure for a disease, at least until the drive for greater wealth got in the way so that even if a cure is found it will be kept hidden away because there is lots more money to be made with an active illness or disease. And when their isn't any, you can simply create one in a lab and afterwards fabricate the source in order to perpetrate some other ulterior motive where more money or position or property can be acquired.
Searching for some "higher consciousness", some path by which one can transcend from one position to the next (like a state of matter), is one part of an life equation for some people. Whereas they may emphasize this upper limit, they also have a lower limit that they may take for granted as a given, and think that others know there are some things a person won't do. However, since the 1- 2- Many thing appears to be a constant in life, institutions can capitalize on it and use the pattern by which to manipulate the public and create a system by which a few have control over the many and in very many circumstances enjoy privileges which may become viewed as an entitlement. Every person has an upper and lower limit with an exercised centrality. In some cases you might find someone engaging in a flip flop of this scenario as an expression of attempting to be different than others, when actually they are not different on the level of a basic expression, but could be different in terms of some defined limit... which may exceed the common limits of most people. Take for example a person that is talented, gifted or a genius. All three of which may be labels given to them not by others who are talented, gifted or a genius, but by those who do not have the discipline, do not have the obsessive enough character to practice... to pursue some expression of their limitations.
Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this ): 30th December 2022... 11:12 AM, AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.