Thursday, October 23, 2014

The Hubris of Batman

When we read or watch a book or movie about a hero or heroes we tend to think of their flaws and weaknesses. When we see a very powerful fictional superhero defeating normal humans (whom are criminals) with ease we expect there to be a force which can counter their strengths.  That is what makes such stories exciting - a hero whom overcomes trials in order to maintain their image of being a hero!

I am not the most sophisticated comic book reader, yet, any animated movies and series about superheroes (specifically Marvel and DC) I am a big of and make a habit of watching the latest creations.

A common element of the superhero and villain relationship involves the idea they are opposites (in one way or another).  Superman and Lex Luther - Superman has super strength and a sense of justice, while Lex Luther has normal strength and only desires to be as powerful as possible, no matter the cost.

But, in this blog post, which is obviously about Batman, but not his counterpart, the Joker, and in a wider perspective, Batman actually can be argued to have committed far more evil than the Joker! The Joker is Batman's counterpart because he has no sense of right and wrong and does everything based on 'what would be the most chaotic thing to do to get a reaction.' Yet, to say the actions of the Joker, whom has killed, stolen and terrorized people is still less harmful than Batman's, will take a great argument, no doubt.

First, we must recall Batman's origins and a certain organization; The League of Shadows (LoS); these ninjas and assassins are those whom choose to seek justice from the shadows (behind the scene) therefore the organization has realized that is where most of the evil in the world takes place.  So to defeat evil, at times, we must perform evil deeds.  Killing a corrupt senator for instance; while killing is wrong, the Senator could have exploited, stolen and/or kept money which effected development for the entire system.  Because of this one Senator, an entire group or people are effected and cannot develop, due to his/her greed.

But for the LoS it is not usually as small as one or two persons, no, they want to make a move that will ripple and create waves [of change] by their plots and actions. Mainly the organization wants to destroy the world that is most corrupt, all part of it.

Isn't this a good thing? Isn't defeating and destroying what is most corrupt and wrong with human nature, a benefit for the rest of humanity? If you could kill one man for a million to succeed, would you? If you wouldn't I fear you're either an idiot, or, you have never actually considered such a thought-experiment.

So while Batman defeats the LoS, over and over again, they are truly the counter-force to the political and/or corporate criminals taking over the world; through the means of silent-manipulative coercion and political control; the LoS literally doing evil for goodness sake.

Yes they used violence to defeat violence and corrupt politicians to defeat corrupt politicians, but they did so while the majority of the world doesn't care these shadow-organizations exist.  Most do not care that a hand full of families control the world. And until they commit a 'crime' Batman cannot do anything due to his code; he must abide by the law, even if he breaks it with his own activities.

The LoS tries to bring balance to the world by 'evil' deeds and acts, and, Batman merely defeats individuals and groups (only momentarily, because he doesn't kill and they break out of prison eventually) and kicks them off the scale, while never actually creating any sort of real balance.

Batman, in his attempt to be good and noble, stops the LoS from their efforts to destroy those who seek to corrupt the world, only because they are willing to do what he is not; kill.

Had Batman ever killed the Joker, there would of been no more deaths and violence upon the Jokers pending escape from prison; had he killed him, he would of removed a great evil from the world, by an act of evil (evil for goodness sakes).

Yes, we must be careful with such decisions to perform evil with the intent for goodness, and that is why it is a LEAGUE of shadows - it is a group, an organization - not just some group of criminals looking for a pay-day.  Their pay-day is knowing they are trying to tip the scale towards a balance.

While Batman stops the LoS, he stops them from stopping others whom do more harm than killing people.  You kill someone, it's down and over, they suffer no more. However, if a corporation and political groups are involved in cheating people - Batman doesn't bat an eye lash, because they are technically committing no 'crime'.  Yet, objectively, when a small body of people takes from a larger body of people (whether it's money, resources, land, or whatever) we can agree that that small body is in the wrong; 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. When Batman stops the LoS those whom they initially sought to stop, keep going instead. 

Batman gets to pact himself on the back for stopping assassins from killing people, but doesn't even care to notice how he helped those in power to become more powerful?

Batman, in the end, and especially noting how he is a billionaire himself, does no more good for the world than if he never existed.  Had he never existed the LoS would of only became stronger and equally as threatening as those whom seek to profit from corruption (via politics and big business). The balance of good and evil would be real on earth, rather than a constant struggle against evil with only a few impressive moments of goodness. 

Granted this is all fictional - I stand by this simple claim: in Batman's effort to not be evil, he allows evil to be perpetual.

Anthropic Delusion

There are religious dogmas that come from nurture, but primarily there are human dogmas that come from nature. 

Obviously a religious dogmas is taken from a religious source; an individual's spiritual and/or religious practice that creates a barrier (a taboo).

Not to eat meat on certain days of the year.  Not to eat pork or beef. Holy days (hours, day, months or years).
These are examples of religious dogmas^ - to be a good person, to do so otherwise would be a bad person. So you can believe humans are unique and special life forms, because we have these advanced relationships with organized religions and communities. That our actions hold more significance in the universe than an ants because we act uniformly with other humans; because we can agree on an answer. Or you can choose not to believe that. Either way you pick, it's a biased choice. You can't truly know either way - there is argument for both choices - there are practical opinions in both - but, we cannot truly know we are either special beings or not. By special I mean: of having an impact on the entirety of exist // upholding a divine significance of oneself and others. 

Anthropism vs Nonanthropism
If you are thinking in the perspective 'we are special and unique human beings', than that is your bias based on your choice of an opinion to think/agree with such a perspective. Also if you are not-thinking in that mindset - [to be observing one's own possibly biased choices] that we are special and unique, that 'that' is your bias based on your not-choice to think in 'that' mindset - had you had the choice prior to considering one's own [possible] bias.  Pretty much, no matter what, you are making a bias somehow - at any moment in time.
How come it matters they are biased positions in thought?
Well because either bias can prevent or allow you to understand reality (the objective existence of things), yourself and humanity... And which bias effects what type of interpretations at which time? Which is more likely the position taken by people, and what are the long term conditions (affects) of cognition? 
Forwardly, as a human writing this text, I believe we are naturally biased to believe humans are special - anthropocentrism is a constant conditional within our mind. 
And this narrates our subconscious desire to obey human dogmas. Because no matter what we are always going to have bias regardless of which position we choose - anthropist or nonanthropist. Ultimately the desire comes down to our rational, yet, relativistic viewpoints because we cannot and do not know the objective truth - if there is any. Yet, it is our subjective-relatistic ability to believe we are making objective truths that also allows us to make more rational and more advanced choices and to take higher positions of knowing and knowledge. It can never be the best, it can never involve 'it' all. Because 'all' can be a meal for one and a million dollars for another... The knowledge of how to invest into stocks or the wisdom of the sages... The pursuit of desire is objectively sound, however, we all want to obey these dogmas in order to know truths (objectively), Yet, the objectives we long for (in desire) can only be made of the relative factors, features and fractions (fractals) we have available to us, as a subjective being (a human). Tragically, where these human dogmas lead us is down a path; we are inclined towards the objective truths but are dissatisfied that we can never achieve them, so take we settle for a subjective viewpoint and call it objectively true... this is done by trying to have others believe the viewpoint is true, or by joining others whom have a 'true viewpoint' all while forgetting, any viewpoint in innately subjective. (I would argue, the greatest bias of a human is their natural tendency to follow 'the herd')
How to begin to work beyond our human dogmas is to remember: We are highly evolved animals.
Yet, like any animal, we have the need to reproduce and protect ourselves, and those who we identify with [either biologically or socially] and will do so quasi-rationally (over and over again) until there is only a reactionary choice; fight, flight, or freeze. 

As we exist now we still think this, but in a realm which is immaterial by measure of our superior ability to cognate information - our consciousness; ideas are not 'physical' but impact reality none the less (an example of immaterial). We are still trying to survive and that desire (rather an evolutionary requirement) needs to be satisfied, somehow, if not worried about eating, drinking and sleeping safely. 
This is then where we are not animals... We at times are able to not worry about the eating, drinking and sleeping safely - or know that we have to wait - or know where it is coming from. Animals, mammals for this instance, attempt to satisfy these needs and do so in means that is thought to be best for survival - it's a daily struggle for survival. Even house dogs whom are fed and sheltered - will still eat the steak that fell on the floor instinctually.

That steak to us, to the normal, everyday, is a piece of information that can get us ahead in life. It's not different. Our brain convinced us, we convinced ourselves, this information that can get us ahead in life is now - at least in the moment - more important than food, water and shelter. In this moment that information is life and every else. 
That is the steak to the dog.

A few steps to go past your own instincts of being human:

1. Realize there are those whom study and make empirical claims about human nature and it's existence as a whole. And read about them.

2. In an emotional significant moment take 3 deep breaths (1 in, fully, 1 out, fully and 1 in fully) then respond to either yourself or the other party.
3. Read philosophy and about various psychologies; all schools of philosophy attempt to figure out how we think in light of normality - existentialist say "we have no choice but to start with ourselves to know" or a rationalist would say "we question reason in order to know what is in fact rational or not." Find what schools interest you and even branch out from there to see how those thoughts effected psychological theories.
4. Make a stumbeupon account and make your interest related to psychology and sociology - and read an article a day.
5. Meditate; depending on the specific meditation will depend on the goal of said mediation. A personal favorite is Zazen; the goal is to claim the mind to the point in which it is most inactive (and scientifically proven to expand grey matter).
6. Question your beliefs; are they yours? Where did you adapt them? Who is your inspiration? Where do you gain your morals? When and why do you most often question ethical issues? (basically be a general philosophy and not an armchair philosopher.
7. People watch; observe others from a distance and note their reactions in particular moments and compare them to your own experiences and previous observations of others.
8. Judge by actions and not by thoughts; far too often we forget we are programed to seek out the positive-elements of reality, and, if you are aware of what 'false memory' means, seek to ignore and forget the negative. Thus, stop worrying about if others say 'nice things' but worry if they do 'good things'.
9. Remmeber you are an animal; we evolved, whether we were created or a result of random chance, and we evolved to think certain ways - perhaps a good exercise would be to compare yourself to the other species on this planet to see what we do in fact have in common or not. Such as 'hive minds' or 'pack instincts'

10. Whether you think humans are special or not, a 'special human' is not the result of innate specialness (usually) it takes effort and struggle to become 'special' but more so it takes others to declare you special. If this is true, you must seek out others like yourself to know what exactly makes you 'special' or 'unqiue' - and, if you are smart, you will work with them to somehow develop as an individual and a unit.
11. Ignore your gut once in a while; often people say "I just felt something was wrong" or "I got a bad vibe from that person" this is a delusion based on historic information impacting the current moment. Any information your body gives your mind take it with a grain of salt, make a note of it and continue to be open minded.
12. No two people are alike, but not one person is totally different than others; remember - without your family, there would be no you, without your environment, there would be no greater awareness of the world. WE are the result of our surroundings; "we are not internal beings having an external experience, we are external beings having an internal experience."
13. Personalities, like intelligence, change and evolve and develop - make sure you try to do so - reference #4 and add that to your stumbleupon list.

While there is more I can list, we will end on the unlucky 13 - because that number is only unlucky if you think it is - and what made that so? Religious or human dogma? Both?

What we perceive [in reality] is an accumulation of perspectives that make up an 'impression'. And where we accumulate such perspectives is from a multitude of locations ranging from 'chance' to 'purpose' and from 'ourselves' to 'everyone else' and that ultimately sets up a platform for near infinite impressions to be made about anything or anyone - but not at any time, yet, at the time in which we are in the mind set to make such impression. There is truth, we just can't know more than parts of it.

If there is anything I learned from Zen Philosophy it's this: Even if we miss the 'mark' we do so not in vain, because when we miss we seen how far or near we were to the target and others see it too. Watching others miss teaches us how to get closer and closer... even if we never expect to hit the mark entirely.

Ignore your instincts enough to know, you can never actually ignore them.

Monday, April 28, 2014

My Procedural Bias

I believe, and I cannot help but think, that everything exist in constant movements.  There is no static universe, there is only our static interpretations.  This bias prevents me from absorbing a lot of academic information[1] and provides me with the ability to be more than an academic, but an aware global citizen.  In academia the quest is to make a theory, a model, a methodology, a paradigm proposal, etc. etc. that explains an aspect of reality.  In everyday life the quest is to understand the aspects of reality that are most essential to our daily lives; monetary income,self actualization, success, charity.... respect, duty, love, honor... whatever they may involve, they involve things that actually exist, and how we maneuver and work with these aspects of our reality. We perceive a reality, and we interact with it.  The various aspects of reality that effect my ability to perceive and interact are not necessarily always in my perceptional-awareness (cognition), but can become more involved when double-backing on my memories of what was perceived.  This is popularly called metacognition, or the process of metacogitating - thinking about thinking.
[1]-academic information - from a scholarly, professional, journalistic and/or political source of general knowledge, data and/or library.
Connect the asterisks
*How I have come to observe this procedural bias, I only rationalize such as a higher order thinking due to an evolutionary advantage in our human species. 

**How I am able to connect this stream of consciousness from 'everything is in constant motion and never static' -to- 'thinking about thinking' is the exact type of lunacy my brain can conduct, with most of the blame; my existential excuse, being the inability to ignore said lunacy (- the narration of this thread of a stream of consciousness).

*But, we can better focus on what it then means to be able to think in a higher order, and how it might be advantageous.  **Or not.

Do we all have this bias? To some magnitude, to some degree?
Does it effect your ability to learn facts and memorize them like myself?
Do you perform poorly or average in an academic environment (school and university)? No matter the effort?
Do you believe my above stream of consciousness is valid to connect 'the belief of constant motion' with the ability and process of 'thinking about thinking'? Why?

No need to answer, just pointing out additional personal biases. The questions, for myself, are answered by a series of agreements!

Back to the point:

With this bias, among the many I presume I have (except the bias that there are no actual bias but 'how we generally think' in which would be the 'bias to believe we are naturally biased' - which is not genuine), I also have issues interrelating with others.  As I see the world, I see it as something that is but a shadow of it's former self, as soon as I look at it closer.  Once up close, it is no longer the same. Sometimes, we should not look too close at the issues of others - it's advantageous to not, for several reasons: usually a manner of respecting aspects of their individual 1. personal space, 2. boundaries, 3. privacy, and/or 4. information that would be felt more secure as keeping to oneself.  I rather enjoy when people look closer at me, I can also understand how if not welcomed or warranted, it can be offensive to another.  Which is why the Golden Rule fails me - to add to my already series of incoherent statements - because I want others to challenge me and my opinions and my motives, because I would like to always do that to others, but cannot. 

But then I ask myself, do I perform an additional bias for recognizing my own biases and then performing them anyways? **As a stream of consciousness is lunacy, imagine the entire conscious-agency...

I would say no to myself; the procedural bias is already in effect - I am already doubling back on my thoughts in light of them, and reality as always moving, changing and/or in a flux state.

An additional bias may be in effect when I am actively not able to interrelate with another, but perhaps we can just call that 'poor socializing skills'.  Poor socializing skills as a result of the procedural bias... which I should not make a new point:

Since I have this bias, and also believe others have it, I also recognize it might not be as 'heavily active' or 'momentarily influential' to others as myself.  So, the procedural bias, like all cognitive biases, have degrees and/or levels of activity.

For instance, no matter the bias being discussed, there is a 1-100 scale and no ability to be 1 or 100 but any number in between.  How intense one's bias strength may be, would effect their overall thinking - even personality. 

I cannot talk about a person with high or low degrees of procedural biases, because I do not even know if it is a real thing, it is only something I am calling by something else to discuss.

Again, this back-tracking and reanalyzing is a part of my bias.  It's necessary to not be biased about the discussion of my bias(es) - while still acknowledging I am always being biased.

It's quite maddening to edit this.

So personality was brought up and perhaps can shed more light on how this bias may also be effecting you, while showing how any biases (recognized or not) is effecting who we are and how we think. 

Now, introvert and extravert are usually misunderstood from what Carl Jung meant. He explained both as 'where one processes their knowledge' and that can either be 'through oneself' or 'involved with others'.  So an introvert is not necessarily someone shy or unspoken, they tend to be people who seek out answers which need to be processed by their inner-voice, or conscious. An extrovert is someone who is a crowd-pleaser, listens to the majority and responds.  So we are all both introvert and extravert, we are just more of or the other - sometimes a balance.
When bias may come into play (let's say for example the bias in which we are confirming information because we heard it from family as true no matter what) it effects certain people ann their behavior differently in the short and long term.  An introvert may be shy to confirm with their family at first, and be agreeable to that information.  An extravert may be quicker and more agreeable without hesitation to confirm that information.  We can also confirm introvertedly or extrovertedly towards [different] certain information; for instance we may confirm differently towards how to raise a child and what to do about paying the mortgage.  How we confirm, to [different] certain information, may exemplify who we are as a person, persona and/or personality.(A rough example)

I guess what I wanted to say is two things: 1. I suffer from a severe case of 'procedural psychosis' that while interesting to encourage in the arts, does not necessarily provide effective communication for an objective measure. And 2. That although I suffer from 'procedural biases' it does not mean others do not, in fact, I believe, everyone has this bias, but to different degrees and applications.

1.  I can now better put my bias aside to say "I choose to encourage this bias because it allows metaphysical contemplation to be more practical, while I understand it does not necessarily mean what I believe to be practical is actually practical, but my belief it is practical, which I have to defend." In other words: "I accept my bias, because I cannot see myself thinking in other terms."

2. This post can allow myself (and others) to witness my 'lunacy' or otherwise my opinions of how my normal thinking is that of normal thinking of others.  More specifically: "If I am biased to believe that everything is a constant-change, others must be, whether they (or I) can recognize such a bias." Ultimately that may be my own bias to believe, but, until proven wrong, it is one I will stand by as having substance for discussion and research!

The Procedural Bias

This is the original content of Nicholas Lukowiak

When I Think (Short and Brief Post)

2 + 2 does not just equal 4.  It equals 3 + 1, 5 - 1, 6 - 2, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1,  but indeed, the idea of '4' is there, it is the "best" answer for 2 + 2, but it does not make it the only answer nor the only answer we can learn from.

When I think, I think about how there may be one 'best' answer, but there are still many answers that can come from any question.  Even if it just 2 + 2

Critiquing quotes #3

“Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.”  - Plato

Ancient, and I mean ANCIENT, wisdom for us to take from - ignored. 

Modern education systems do exactly what Plato is suggesting NOT to do; do not force or harshness but allow amusement and discovery. 

The difference?

A child (or any person) already has a 'personality' and 'intelligence' given to them [what seems to be] randomly by genetics (nature).  It is environments (nurture) that aids in molding a child.  Allowing a child to find their interest, their curiosity, and/or their 'amusements' can lead them to finding themselves and potentially 'what they will like to become an expert in' (if that is only one thing or many!).

We educate child to test-and-go, while in a system (designated by age-groups and not ability), which only teaches them they NEED formal/government education or else they cannot succeed, in order to 'continue' education in something they are not particular confident they are experts in or care to be involved in...

In short: Our education system poorly educates our youth everyday that they are not allowed to express themselves in what they would like to learn, and not what we force them to learn.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Why Morals Matter More For You Than Me



My opinion is, the resolutions to objective morality come from the question of the ordinary mind, and as it relates to be an individual human being among an entire humanity - rather we are just one of a whole and understanding the whole is how we can better understand the one.

"Questioning morality is pulling at the thread of humanity."

A moral moment, as in a moral dilemma, are dependent on previous morals and will be resolved in light of making a morally based decision.  Enough with semantics.

I actually have a problem with most questions of morality, and what is the moral thing to do or not. I think morals are usually left for witnessing one another's actions, and if they violate a self-accepted ethical understanding of right and wrong (which I appointed to be there).. Then we somehow end up becoming or playing a moralist and ethicist, as if my opinions mattered to more than just myself... The ability to question morals becomes the new dilemma.

It is the actions that are the result of the persons' true moral beliefs

If this is ordinary, to have a sense of morality, to question it more intently during times where it is used. Then I would work to be more than "ordinary" by mere reflection of "morality" and 'ethics' outside of the moments which require those inquiries to be resolved, if even loosely. This goes for all thought.  But, put consciousness before the thoughts, moments and concern of morality. If I only play ethicist when their is an ethical dilemma, and it violates my moral beliefs... I would like to be prepared to handle this violation, with a clear head, based on more than just my morals involved. 

"In fact, if others do not directly harm you, there should be less reason to be aggressive. If they merely harm your belief systems, there is still no reason for aggression until they are harming others or yourself - and if that is due to violating and harming your beliefs, then we need to consider the entirety of the situation and all it's dynamics."

What's relative to morality is immense, and at times when those who just settle with morals as always being relative forget we all are able to question morality, which makes them involved with the subjective - our minds and selves.  An entirely psychological connection, is the fact we are able to "THINK" - we think, that means we understand what anyone means when they write the word think.  Not-a-proof? Okay, any intelligible-actual-language-that-exist, if they write down a word for think, we can translate it and understand think.  More proof: some languages have more than one word for think and thought - emphasis changes - meaning not only do we think, we think about thinking.  Evidence based on language itself. You question my over usage of thinking, fine.

Are you however, every time the word is read, actually taking the time and moments to question "thinking." Is there a momentary pause, or is there just a passive absorption of the word 'thinking' being read? Depends on the context, the moment, reason, purpose, relation to the material being read? What if I said, how often you pause or pass the word 'thinking' could signify your general thinking? Impossible! It is. However, to oneself, that just may be the case. What is thinking? What is thinking 'proper?' What is the best right way to think? What is the right way to think? What is the only way to think? Is there more than one way? How many ways? What effects the ways we thinking? Can I know everything that effects my thinking? How about how that effects/affects this? Do the ways people take effect who they are? Do we have choices in all the ways we think and the "paths" we take? What is choice? Do we get more choices from thinking? Do we get more choices to think when we think about the way we think and/or could possibly think? Knowledge of choices, effect our decisions? What is knowledge, how does it relate to what is "thinking?" Our decisions effect our thinking and thinking effects our decisions? So knowledge of choices, effect our thinking, of more choices? Is this thinking too much? What is too much? When is happiness effected? Now, I'm sad, and done questioning... Do you get sad, every time you consider these^ questions of consciousness/thinking, and/or a relatable series of inquires? Do you do so every time you read the word "thinking?" Neither do I. But, I imagine there are individuals that do.  I imagine there are more who have never.  And then there are the unfortunate who are never able to. That sentiment goes for far more than thinking.  We are our thoughts, WE collectively are our thoughts. We are mind. 

The virtuous point of epistemology: Morality and thinking, should be interchangeable.

"What is ordinary, is what is most important to reflect on, not to accept without 'a reflect'."

Philosophical objectivism is absurd due to the premise that it dependent on the same definition of what is an absolute. Well, that type of thinking is exactly what Zen teaches me not to think, but to understand it exist.  That we believe we can know something absolutely, but we can never actually know something absolutely.

The question of what is objectively moral, then, is where there seems to be a more vague entanglement of innate meaning (what is the essence of a moral?). Because, again, what is objective? What is right and wrong for me, and is it for others?

Whether or not we can have these answers (of what is actually the more moral thing to do in this instance or with that dilemma) we should strive to do so anyways.

Our ability to be a moralist (at the moment of dilemma) will amount to either 1. how much we considered these types of morals and 2. how much we haven't considered these these types of morals.  Which would ultimately narrate the resolution(s) of the dilemma(s) at hand.

There can be too much preparation, which can result in oversights and long term effects not being noticed in the moment.  There can be too little preparation, which can result in far more oversights and long term effects not being noticed in the moment.  Which extreme seems more impacting on others and yourself?

'A great instance of where we can seem like we are making a moral choice is charity.  We send clothes and food to those third world countries with a joy we are giving with no expectation of a return.  Yet, when millions of people send an impoverished country food and clothing, do they question themselves about the people whom are already suppose to be growing, making and selling the food and clothes products in that country? In a world where capitalism is the difference between a first, second and third world country... To give them materials which otherwise would be produced (through markets) is actually eliminating their ability to compete in the world.  You take away work from farmers, merchants and stores when you donate these clothes and food without more investment.'

The above is an example of how a series of good actions with good intentions can ultimately lead to a series of negative consequences and results. Now a question: Should those who donated feel bad/awful/negatively about what/how they have contributed towards the prevention of a country to develop with the rest of the world? And what should they do about it, if they do feel bad?

No matter the answers, these are moral dilemmas. And although it is an advanced example (because it is likely to be true), it should only show how lack of prior 'moral exercise' can result in decisions that would thought to be 'good' to actually be 'bad' in the long term.

Is this a result of how human's do not think about the future of others, but the moment of ourselves? Or is this just a result of our lack of questioning morality?

To me, they are one of the same. Hence 'why morals matter more for you than me' - because if the decisions you make now seem pleasant and proper and justifiable but later turn out to be the contrary, only you can feel/respond to those reactions.  Others may be effected by your actions, but you are the only one who can feel the consequences of your actions that effected others.

No argument valid to insist people are not people or not to be treated as your neighbor, and as savages. If we are mainly external beings (dependent on others), these unsophisticated people (whom can rationalize how we are able to not treat others like people) are merely reflecting their culture and random environments. No different than you. You are just not the same type of person they are but unless their is absolutely no reason to get along. Defense should be made. Not an offense. Over time of defending new perspectives can be considered between opposed sides. In offense, there is no time to think but do.


I don't like this post, at all, but I just wanted these thoughts to be out there.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Solipsism Resolved; The Mind Exist Therefore Minds Exist

Through a series of arguments I will attempt to prove solipsism is not a practical philosophy to explore reality - but, still, a good exercise.

My main theme, reason and position: We are external beings having internal experiences. 

First and foremost a definition of Solipsism: "
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.”  He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one."

**I highlighted the parts where more of my counter-thoughts will be made towards.
*Degree of importance for discussion goes from red - green - yellow


A. Social Influences (and how you are able to influence) prove existence outside of 'mind':

1. The language you use. The education you have. The music, movies and art you may follow and/or enjoy. The religion you're organized with. Friendships. Relationships; include romantic. Likes/dislikes. Preferences.

1.a. These factors are dependent on what we commonly call social influences. The need-to-adapt-to-our-environmental-axioms are manufacturing a part of our knowledge which alter/effect our ability to be truly free conscious agents and prevents us from understanding how the external is in the moment, and not truly free of bias. And in a lifetime
 conflicting/working with our internal identities (our personalities and person) and then again effecting out we observe and interpret our environments and perception of reality. Ultimately, we resolve this issue with band wagon.  But, we do so without completely aware of the extent.

2. You exist, because you live in a society, and if others from said society can say you exist, you must exist. This is a default living condition for us; this is our social-existence. Expanding our own consciousness comes from reflecting on the agency of others in and out of our own social existence. Also understanding their social norms which provide them with their physiological biases. Once you think about it, it changes. It can be thought or cognition or belief or knowledge or truth or consciousness itself - this is metacognition; philosophizing; thinking about thinking. Your thoughts are not you. "You" are how you use your thoughts and let your thoughts use you. As a sophisticated thing we have external influences and internal problems to solve. Solving those problems come as easy as picking what works best and most often, most of the time. Easy does not necessarily mean better for our mind. External influences are merely the values obtained in society, ones family and heritage, culture, friends...

2.a. How to live life comes from these points within our social existence, with or without one's awareness of [to] the extent, while we are trying to figure out life. Just look at others with more of an open mind. We have more similarities by natural argument than otherwise. 

3. What is the best way to think about the mind?
What is the proper way to "think?"
What IS thinking, and what do those answers do for newer thinking?

The fact is... the mind is an exponential inquiry with respects to philosophy and to any scientific investigation.

But, with philosophical intensity, there can be practical answers to the questions of mind.  They involve... not thinking so ordinary.

3.a. The simple answers seem to exist within the essence of these conceptuals - 1. instinct, 2. culture+society+family, and 3. the natural self and/or one's personal human nature.  The 'natural self' is who you are randomly as an individual consciousness -a solo conscious agent- a personality and intelligence... in prehistory a "soul."  While you have the same 'brain' and 'environments' as others - you do not share the same seemingly random experiences with your genetically random self.

3.a.i. In a sense we are external beings have an internal experiences: 

The majority of factors (bits of knowledge) involved with effecting -our ability to [self] conceptualize-(metacognate) are from the external world.. While we construct reality idiosyncratically, in our perceptions, based off of overall metacognition, we then only organize internally -our ability to [self] conceptualize-(metacognate). The prime aspects of our cognition are dependent on features which are not physically attached to the mind, but in a manner responding to prerecognition (a double scope). Then our ability to recognize metacognition, rationally <-> intuitively as a reflection to higher order thinking, is then obviously what we have in common.   

3.a.ii. We are beings, namely human, which are evolutionary designed<->developed with the ability to extensively think about our thoughts.  WE have mechanisms producing various abilities to perceive reality according to our instincts, prerecognized environments, and random selves.

3.a.iii. If we are 2 parts not-self, and 1 part self, than we are more external than internal.  This would resolve long lasting epistemological conflicts of externalism and internalism, if we agreed to say "we had 3 or more minds to talk about where knowledge comes from."

Understanding ordinary mind as 3, means worrying about more than the 1 that is the "self" - worrying about others and humanity as a whole - will make a mind develop ordinary.

B. The General Discussion of Mind - how can we have one in the first place?
1. "What is ordinary?" is up for strong speculation from a lot of traditions and minds and beliefs. But, what strings them together is the desire to under "mind" and how to use our 'mind' better. 

1.a. Argument extending Social Influences 3.a.:

 We are 1. instincts, we are 2. others and we are [a] 3. self-identified "I" or "me" or "SELF"

If there are 2 things that effect 1, while being 3 (in a cycle, like water for instance [liquid, ice, steam)... There must be not so ordinary (everyday, momentary) thinking involved in HOW we are thinking. We are then a mind unaware of the other minds.  We are then a mind where 2 + 1 = 3 and 1 - and then makes sense, while defying mathematical principles and laws which are immutable in nature... If mathematical logic had any ability to explain consciousness, the mind or the extent of human cognition - we would of already had those answers by now.  Instead, now, algorithmic maps are designed to answer the most basic of basic questions of cognition (thought processing); what is making a decision deprived of? what makes the decision more ideal? what makes us biased in decision making? what influences biases, decisions and overall cognition?

2. Mind can mean a lot, especially depending on syntax, so to say what is *ordinary* of mind, is to also suggest there is ordinary to A LOT [which is involved in understanding the human mind]. Which there is, there are patterns in the universe.  How we articulate them, is the puzzle - easier solved while working with others, and often more advanced when working for others.

2.a. Mind as Spiritual Entity: We practice reflection of mind to be able to better understand our irrationalities... If we understood the brain is the carrier of mind-spirit which is celestially pulling us towards other brains in bodies, and bodies with brains...

As soon as you rethink about how you are not truly original: you cannot create anything NEW - nor - create things others cannot duplicate.  You risk losing a piece of the humanity, the mind which is guided by others.  With risk comes reward.


In conclusion I end this blog post with a simple suggestion... STOP DEBATING SOLIPSISM AS A PLAUSIBLE STANCE AGAINST COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS!

The dedicated monist monk that will live his/her life in a constant state of not-knowing will come no closer to the meaning of existence than the ant pushing a piece of shit into the ant hill.  It's all a matter of perspective... And looking down on human beings compared to ants, we are doing no better - and if you disagree, you should reconsider what it means to have a 'mind' that is not attached to being an 'animal.'

As a human being we are innately like every other human being in our deepest desires... Not a unique entity, it just seems that way, your mind is not special unless others deem it special by social standards, get over it.