It seems that Wittgenstein’s Ontology can be approached from various “sides of the philosophical hill.” I could start explaining it in pure being-and-stuff terms: that the “stuff” of this world is sufficiently atomic. Atomic, here referring to “simple” indivisible, non-complex or non-compounded entities. Whoever knows whatever each atomic entity is is irrelevant.

Now, how Wittgenstein gets to atomism isn’t a matter of empiricism or particle accelerator-colliders. There’s a parallel world which he sees necessarily requiring metaphysical atomism: semantic atomism. Maybe I should back up a bit. There is another “hill” by which Wittgenstein approaches his atomic conclusion. Human language is a very flexible thing. It’s not like machine-code, where each and every operator and label is important to the point of system-crashing. Human language also isn’t like code, since it is filled with vagaries, nuance. What human language presents itself as is a weird mix of names, relations, actions and general fluff.

Names are significant entities, otherwise known as “terms.” They’re a handy connection between language and physical, empirical reality. They are usually as clear and present as a stop-sign is (and if they’re not, well, they can be made to be so by simple presentation of the ‘thing’ they represent). Names, as signs, are just like those silly metaphysical atomic entities — simple, and undecomposable (who knew that was an actual word!) in meaning. Sure, we could try and decompose “unicorn” into words (through descriptors), for instance “A unicorn is a white horse, with a single straight, pointy horn on it’s nose, like a narwhal.” But such a description (however accurate or precise) is hardly a decomposition.. it’s really just pointing me towards the possible idea or possible reality of a unicorn, but not in any real way pointing a unicorn out. Put another way, descriptions are really good filters and painters, but really bad labels or signs.

So that’s the majority of the tough-stuff. After the clarification of what atomism is, I really just see worlds parallel to our own, in logical space and/or in language-space. And speaking of logic, Wittgenstein views the relationship of these atomic entities as logically oriented. The world’s content is atomic, so the world’s form (like language’s form) can also be parallel, and like science tries to find out the precise nature of nature, the form of nature is spelled out in logic. I may have presented logic here as secondary, contingent or as “accidental”, but really, logic is the third “way” up the philosophical hill of Wittgenstein’s ontology — were you to start with logic, Wittgenstein would expect you to also end up with atomism.

Word count:  431.

My RSS feed gave me this gem today:

I recommend taking a larger perspective than this overly-simple graphic displays. Note that it is without any credits to actual pyschological or sociological research, as well as being an example of the “slippery slope” logical fallacy .

Rather, the “real world” is filled with people who are managed into any one (not necessarily all!) of these positions by circumstances which themselves seem overly challenging, or have proven worthless. These can be seen as personal failures. Note also that self-confidence, cirumstances/environments of empowerment are NOT on this list, nor are they suggested to be on this list. Instead, Mr. Holmes presents the beginnings of a ‘blame-game’, a triage by which to score, judge and rate workers. Those who are already succeed will continue, those who fail will continue. Mr. Holmes offers no direct or clear recommendations or means of change. Such a false-dichotomizing info-graphic leads the viewer into negative feelings of self or worse, sets a keen eye to look out for and against the “fixed” folk. Enemy-creation is hardly the hallmark of civil society, yet it is the nature of Modernist thought.

This is an entirely sad “info”-graphic, placing all responsibility for change upon the individual, who likely is by now numb and blind to opportunity, having missed prior occasions for success. I fail to see how blaming the “victim” here solves any problems or moves anyone beyond self into sociable environments. Management means helping – something that was lost in the industrial revolution’s genocide of apprenticed trade-workers. People are moved by experience more than simple frameworks, however wonderful and cleanly presented they may appear.

Most of these statements I have made are likely familiar to sociologists; a field which is likely unfamiliar to much of the outstanding public. My reccomendation: Read Mark Schneider’s Theory Primer book.

In a tribute to Jessica Hagy‘s oh-too-obvious work (but we still love it!) I hereby present:

In the past 20 hours, I have heard of “snow-pocalypse” on FoxNews* & “Comcast/NBC mergepocalypse” / “Comcatastrophe” from the Consumerist**. Need I mention the “financial meltdown” from 2-4 months ago?? I’m not convinced.  Sure the snow is “record setting“, but that just means it’s rare, which means exciting. It’s fun, it’s February, it’s supposed to snow! And the more southerly it snows, the faster it will melt. My real concern is the general public (and news media’s) willingness to panic. Panic attacks don’t get anyone anywhere.

Enough already.

Notes:

* I do not watch FoxNews. Ever.
** I was pointed to this link by a friend, which was amusing.

So what’s up with the latest buzz-word “emerging”? It’s starting to get annoying: First up today, I read a post about Samsung’s kid/teenager-”friendly” phone, which allowed such features as “fake call” and “SOS Call”. And how did they describe the usage of these features? “..users can be directly linked to their family members and friends in emergent situations and even easily escape from dangerous situations”. Ok, sure this is “emergent” as in “emergency”, as in “911″. I’m ok with that.

Exhibit “B” came down the pipes right after I read about the phone: Ray Kurzweil’s interview regarding AI and all the other fund machine-futurism ideas I tend to enjoy. He (of course) decided to use “emerging” in a more philosophical sense: “if we were to consider where consciousness comes from we would have to consider it an emerging property.” Really Ray? Emerging? Just like the number ’2′ emerges from putting 1 and 1 together? Whoa, that’s mysterious.. I don’t know how ’2′ just emerged!

And of course there’s always the “emergent”/”emerging” church issues. How inane is it to have dividing lines along the last few letters of a word?

Seriously, if ‘emergent’ is becoming a synonym for ‘immediate’, ‘unknown’, ‘novel’ or ‘indirect causation’, all terms lose their meaning. It’s like describing the very-well-known processes of electrical transistors not a ‘switches’ but as ‘dice’. There are better terms out there: supervenience, direct & indirect causation, necessary or essential, contingent or ‘accidental’..

The language of emerging (whether good or bad) puts stress on the object created and less on it’s contingencies. Read: Giving something the property of necessity-of-existence when it is wholly contingent. While I understand this to be an absolute reversal of Modernism’s interest in the necessary and non-contingent (and subsequent disinterest in all things contingent), surely there ought be a balance to this “OMG! Isn’t this SO GREAT?!” romanticism (or so claims this semi-modernist!)

So as for this blog-post ‘emerging’ from my brain, being contingent on my job not interrupting me, my own ability to focus, as well as my own thoughts being formed into this ‘whole’ which is a post, I guess it “emerges” just like an “emergent” (911) situation.. but honestly, what in life doesn’t emerge??

There are 2 kinds of art, given a set of elements to play with:
1) The kind that thinks all adds up to 63.. or
2) The kind that thinks sees 34 or 23 or 13. i’ll take any of ‘em!

Each would see the ‘brown’ canvas with black dots differently. The first kid would likely create something more like the blue canvas, all focusing together; the latter would make something like the green canvas– not all the dots connected on the same pattern or at precisely the same angles. More is added in than is necessary, and some is left out.

The first type of artist is one of a strong-mind; who must make all the connections connect as close as possible. “Close” isn’t good enough. There *IS* *only* *one* *ideal*. This the idealism at it’s best/worst. There’s strengths to this, like knowing what you’re doing; understanding and having reasons. Those are good, but they aren’t *all* there is.

This method will also have trouble with what is given; will prefer to modify what is given in favor of ’rounding off the edges’ so that it fits within the Ideal he has created. Trouble is, self-defined ‘rough edges’ may be some else’s precious child. Sacrificing another for your-own is hardly commendable. Thus the idealists have consistently one thing to learn: love+humility, in the form of valuing others and seeking understanding of them. Often this won’t happen without a fight, since the idealist will idealize (within his own ideas/competencies) what the other persons wants. He will always think he has acheived until someone tells him otherwise.

This idealist thrives on energy, and dismisses the existence of entropy, that he should have to deal with it, bow to it’s demands, or worse, be accountable for it. “Entropy is outside of me, thereby ‘not my problem’” he would say.

The second form of art is a much less strong-minded/ideal approach, where “close enough” has much wider tolerances. It’s less ideal, more pragmatic. However, that does not mean that it is less precise; things can precisely exist and be placed within a tolerance. Often one method of this is to leave out elements that are ‘suggested’ but not ‘required’ for the scope of work; there are more however.

This is the pluralist’s approach: chopping off the head of #1 and making all #2 & #3. Creating more level ground. And for pragmatism, that’s just fine: why sell the $60k car to a kid who grew up with a ’85 cavalier? He won’t know what to do with it, can’t afford it, and will end up wrecking it, all while you’re $55k in debt! Giving away high quality has no place in the market. Rather, consistently selling people what they can handle (but not dream or do for themselves) is progress, and sufficient. This expectation and standard the idealist cannot handle, and will only scoff at.

Each artist is different. But both will tend to view their work as an expression/extention of themselves. So telling the idealist to not be so idealistic is telling them to do ‘crap-work’, and further communicating that ‘crap’ is more acceptable than they are. So what does that leave them feeling like? Crap’s crap. And entirely confused/frustrated. “But I was doing my best!!!” Yes, and the world can’t handle you. Idealists suffer through “The heartbreaking work of staggaring genius.” The world can’t handle idealists, and idealists can’t handle the world.

As for the hope of the idealist changing into the pragmatist, it can rarely happen. This is the cry of the 90′s for “out-of-the-box” thinkers. This is equal to the “work” that must be done in marriage, which no dating-for-one-month couple who has yet to run out of date ideas still has to learn and of which cannot conceive. Such work takes either supreme self-awareness or supreme others-focused-ness, consistent changing of purpose, playing with possibilities instead of fixating on the One, being thankful for open rebuke and not being afraid to try.

This is not about ‘aiming & shooting lower’ like the idealist will think it is. It’s another goal altogether, one filled with enabling other people’s dreams over your own, and calling their ugly baby pretty, because they never thought they could give birth.

Update: this little art-theory has everything to do with personal clothing style choices as well:

While recently looking at a “wide leg” ad, I was reminded me of a rather ‘artsy’ friend of mine. While analyzing this ad, I was further reminded what defines the “artsy” look. It’s having “outfits” that are offbeat, but also which only display 2% of “you” and having 90 of such outfits. This way you never wear the same style from day-to-day like ‘most’ ppl, and you never wear what is FULLY yourself, but are happy to take this one small 2% bit of you and tease it out into something bigger than yourself. Of course this is the ‘I’ personality type who can pull this off, since that’s how they *act*, not just dress.

I’m not that type. I’m the more orderly-idealist who will tend to be more “monochromatic” in style (having found the One Style that IS Me), albeit just off-beat enough, a la beatniks & film noir

Some thoughts which fundamental/conservative christians will never approach.

Their usual approach is to “outsource” logical thinking to those in authority over them & run with the conclusions from such people. The consistent trouble with this is mis-used authority, often within churches it takes the form of speaking from outside the realm of one’s knowledge. The corollary to one of the arguments leads to a conclusion of “He’s ‘God’s man’, and God knows everything, so he has access to everything, and his conclusions are best.”

For such fallacious thinking I have no tolerance. It’s amazing people even allow themselves to call such statements ‘reasons’.

By only listening to one source for all epistemology, metaphysics, physics, biology and ethics, one can ONLY wind up with a small, linear path of knowledge and behavior. OF COURSE it’s The Way Things Should Be – they won’t validate any other statements than The One they hear/have heard/agree with.

By outsourcing all logical functions leading to conclusions about reality, a few kinds of people (with their own kind of psycho-pathology!) can created (simply by nature of what people have within themselves.. personality, etc):

1) The paranoid: unable to listen to anything to calm down the thoughts the have from the inside, or hear from the outside.. Having had no familiarity with reason or logic (since outsourced & denied by the church) any tid-bit of semi-reason is more than powerful to put them to sway. To which further abuse from those in category #4 tell them to “Get a grip,” “just believe,” and “Trust Jesus.”.. trust him for what, besides “that he has all things worked out” and “this is for The Good” they cannot say. Who knew they were Platonic?

2) The nice rebel: as stated, the agnostics and mystics. Much like #1, but “on the outside” often who came from the “inside.”

3)  The mean rebel: one who recognizes the abuse of monocular dogmatics/outsourced reason. Becomes sharp with reason to use against #1 or 4. Becomes the authority of #2.

4) The Dogmatic Follower: follows in line with what is said, no matter what, further creating these pathologies.. unable to reason why they are created, unable to admit they create them, unable to fix, only able to label and lambaste. Peaceable, rational, relational interaction is impossible. Statements such as “I don’t understand why you can’t just..(fall in line) are then made to #1 through 3.”

Development occurs in each category generationally. What becomes appalling is when two forms of the same reality develop among each of these group/people types and one is labelled ‘legit’ and the other is demonized.

Simple pride stops people from listening to other sources and admitting there’s more than Their Way Things Should Be.

And on the opposite side, sadly, pride is also what stops the materialist or the mystic or agnostic from finding any conclusion at all. We might even say this psycho-pathology (fear of being wrong) is created by dogmatics.

And isn’t all this mess simply rectified by authorities listening? Reason being restored?  Forbid listening to Ecclesiastes (hmm.. the book of the ecclesia.. church?)

Ecclesiastes 4:13 Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. 

Rule #1: Authority != (does not equal) knowledge.

Where this rule is denied, you will find chaos and mindless followers, even those who think they are intellectuals, rebels, independent. All are the same, and all need pride removed, often starting with the Authorities, who shall be judged first and hardest.

Note: Jesus said to teach what he taught; Paul said he taught nothing but Christ. I dare say the ‘church’ receives the most criticism/condemnation form inside and out when it tries to teach something other than the true Gospel: Jesus.

I’ve been accused by a friend of ‘doing the same thing as the modernists’; that is, building a structure for all the pieces in life. And at face value, that’s right, I am doing the same thing. But there’s more than face value.

Take this dilemma: A friend comes up and tells how she learned a new great way to stretch (in yoga class). But you think yoga is from the devil.

Typical question: is it moral? (read; should I do it/agree with it?)
Typical answer: Fear. (read: yes it’s moral, no I shouldn’t)

Notice the pieces in play vs. the structure (context).
Pieces:
1) body
2) stretching
3) yoga
3.1) spiritual influence: yoga
3.2) bodily influence: stretching
4) spiritual influence: devil’s action in the world

Modernistic-Fundamental-Christian Structure:
1) We both have bodies that need stretching (amoral statement likely to be accepted by both parties)
2) Yoga provides negative spiritual influence ‘hidden’ in bodily influence (fundy-christian only idea)
3) Yoga’s spiritual influence is INSEPARABLE from it’s physical influence (fundy-christian only idea)
4) Therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater. (conclusion)

PoMo (independent of religion) Structure:
1) We both have bodies that need stretching (amoral statement likely to be accepted by both parties)
2) Yoga provides spiritual influence ‘hidden’ in bodily influence (potentially troublesome idea, depending on what kind of influence)
3) Yoga’s spiritual influence IS SEPARABLE from it’s physical influence (PoMo only idea)
4) Therefore, any negative spiritual influence can be separated from any physical activity.
4.1) Corollary: Yoga may or may not be ‘bad’, but elements can still be ‘good’.

This one’s easy: it’s the ‘inseparable’ element which is the killer. It’s an assumption. And whether you (a) think about for just a second or (b) don’t, depends whether your conclusion is valid. Because if #3 isn’t valid, then #4 (conclusion) is wrong, and we’re left looking like an idiot. This is the resolution I’m referring to. (previously labelled ‘blanket statement’ or ‘generalization’ by the public). It’s not just a question for debate, it’s about a perception of the world which leaves us looking like idiots or sane men. Maybe I’m the crazy one, what ever happened to a little bit of ‘protestant work ethic’ applied to intellectual work? This isn’t even close to a 5lb weight to lift, and will rapidly get Hebrews 5 “milk vs. meat” label applied!

Let me display another spin to this:
Yoga has an ideology, like Catholicism does. Icons mean something in Catholicism. Is this meaning universal, automatic, created in nature (general revelation) or is it man-made, like-unto a work of art or piece of literature? Fact is, the stone is God-made, the carving may be God-ordained, but the purpose of “getting one’s mind on the reality of said sculpted saint” is hardly in the Bible. So it’s likely man’s idea. It’s a good idea. It’s admirable. I’d expect it from someone over 1-2k years of history of any ideology. So we have a piece of rock which has one purpose attached to it by man, but that rock could have been alternatively a paper weight. Or in a grinding mill.

Likewise the body in motion is a creation-level entity, for various application & association. Any given motion (hailing a taxi vs waving hello) is independent of context, until it is contextualized (man-made associations attached — Semiotics anyone?)
Looks like we’re dumped into “to the pure, all things are pure” debate.

My point is simple: for any element, there are plenty of facets and connectable joints (legos, knex, etc). That’s creation-level elements & pieces. Various ideologies attach each peice in certain ways. Some are more flexible (leaving joints/facets open for further attachment, like hinduism) or some are more rigid and demanding (where joints/sides are closed off from touching anything). Modernism constructed a reality in a certain structure, presuming it was the ONLY way it could be built. Fundamental Christianity came along and reacted, creating a counter-structure, with the SAME rigidity. So I simply ask, is Fundamental Christianity ‘true’ christianity or merely a bi-product of modernism? What if there were ‘open’ joints and blocks which could allow for some rearranging? If the WHOLE structure were freely rearrangable, then Christianity would become nothing, and I’m not fond of ‘standing up for nothin’. So can we please have a mediate position?

Would you please understand me and my thinker-types? I promise I’m not anti-trinity, anti-virgin birth, anti-atonement. I just like unified, cross-connected, higher-resolution thinking & speaking due to these open joints that are freely connectable to previously missed/unspoken connections (hence my desire for a new vocabulary). There’s a big difference between me and the old-school Modernists and new-school PoMo’s– both think the whole thing’s a sham (fully reconnectable). And I’m certainly different than late-modern dumbed-down all-about-me sell-outs.

“..without adequate public debate” is an interesting phrase. What’s that all about? Likely, that in a democratic environment, this is important that the people *feel they have the power*. Ahh the sensibilities of the masses. While I find crowd behavior easy to mock, in this case it’s important. It’s the choice between public frenzy & outrage vs. a peaceable relationship between ruler/ruled.

And I have trouble with it, because is it really about the public feeling ok with things? feeling they have power? When is emotionality bankrupt?

Let’s spin this one in a different context: parenting. There’s 2 ways to tell a child ‘no’. 1) tell him no (period). 2) talk through it. The trouble comes when #2 is all a sham, when no amount of talking would ever change the authority’s position. Now, besides that being the Straw-man fallacy. It’s really just #1, only worse: you’re mocking the child’s reason (hint: demeaning them!)

Notice how false-discussion only works when, in both cases, whoever is under the authority is moved emotionally. This is the case for smaller children of course, but what of rapidly-becoming rational(let’s hope) late-youth/collegians? Sure, youth are more emo than adults, but let’s take a decently grounded & rational college kid. All of a sudden any intellect he/she may have is sent back to grammar school: No, you’re really just dumb. Hardly good parenting.

Aside: It’s not really democracy when ppl don’t have the power. How crazy is it that I have to choose in unsatisfactorily large probabilities in elections. I don’t get to vote over issues. No one asks me, and no one tells me what issues go on in government. Rather, instead, I get to choose someone who likely is uninformed about the 45 issues I value deeply, and instead only plays to a generic set of 10-20 ‘hot topics’ which I’m usually ambivalent about.

And of course parenting is hardly democracy( the power isn’t in the children), but consider power vs. love vs. knowledge vs. respect. It’s a multi-faceted arena. To ignore half of those and make it about one or two topics only is degrading reality, and living in a lowered-resolution (photography/printing metaphor) idealism. It may work some of the time, but the edges rapidly become ‘gray’ (read: filled with injustice). To take a picture that shows all the colors and fine grains and blur it into a 2-tone, 4 block image? Injustice to the reality which God created, and injustice to your God-created mind which is capable of handling more than you let it.

So I recently became aware that Conan, Leno, etc are involved in what is known as “Observational Comedy.” And this is a nice thing, because it picks up on the semi-obvious and usually humorous elements of contemporary life, news, etc.

I’d like to propose a more profound variety for the masses: Observational Philosophy. Imagine late-night television being hosted by the late Derrida, Quine or Russell. Likely no one would watch simply because they would be frustrating to the work-a-day man. But suppose there’s a middle ground, one which the masses would, like Leno, all stand in agreement and say, “Yes! That’s it!”

This would be not simply the gift of ‘knowledge’, rather the gift of thinking! Analysis, coherent thought-flow. We’re lucky to get such from any source. News? That is anything but coherent! Irresponsible out of context one-offs usually. Politics? Pandering to the masses in double-speak. Religion? Either touchy-feely nothingness or bullied repetition (What of grace and truth?).

Seeing this lack of coherent thought makes me long for a “Sesame Street of Analytic thought for adults” or perhaps a “Mr. Rodgers for grown-ups.” I doubt I’ll ever be one, and I’m not sure I’d want to be, but oh to see the potential for a positive force in American culture and media beyond “Cramer’s Mad Money.”

So here’s my suggestion: Observational Philosophy #1: Hierarchical Authorities

Legislation comes in when the capitalists won’t & grassroots can’t.