Al B Damned That's Yet to be Philosophein

The Blog is dedicated to the by products created by me pursuing philosophein (meaning loving wisdom but devoid of any nouns) Currently under construction

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Fantasizing

I am pretty sure that if what I fantasized was real I am pretty sure I would be extremely miserable. I am if that would make me a masochist for fantasizing in something I don’t actually want, a banality since I’m pretty sure I can’t think of anything better to escape to, which means my days are only going to be this or worse, or a pessimist because I am sure it will badly. Any which way I am sure to suffer, it’s my lot in life.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Problem 27 - Achilles and the Tortoise

In a race, the quickest runner, Achilles, can never overtake the slowest, the tortoise, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower (tortoise) must always hold a lead. – as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15

This problem at its heart is that it is a paradox. How can both the deductive reasoning of the division of space and the inductive reasoning of observation of the faster overtaking the slower be true? To begin to understand let’s begin with rooting out the premises to see how underlying this structure develops into this paradox.

This paradox assumes that space is infinitely divisible. If it didn’t then Achilles would eventually get to the smallest interval of distance and cross it, though any motion would be less then observed (another paradox for another day). This problem also assumes that space is dividable and proceeds in a linear direction. Finally the paradox relies on inductive reasoning to act as a premise.

There have been several solutions to this paradox with two fairly famous ones, one the creator of the paradox no doubt supported, and the other one from Aristotle. To better make sense of this paradox a small philosophy history would help give better context to how the two solutions relate to each other.

Zeno of Elea was the author of this and about forty other paradoxes, of which about ten. Of the ten surviving paradoxes most of these can be found in the writings of Aristotle and he was mostly commenting on them. Zeno was a student of Parmenides and could be considered his successor. Parmenides taught that The World was static, unchanging, and a unified oneness. For this would necessitate that any change we observe to be understood as a falsehood of some kind.

This theory is “egg” for the Law of Conservation of Energy. Parmenides model of oneness included time, space, energy, and matter. This would make Existence seem like a block of everything. Time too would be apart of this block but for some reason or another we only experience one layer of the brick at a time but the whole of the brick exists the entire time. Determinism finds its roots in this theory as well. However these both the Law of Conservation of Energy Determinism only partially use the theories of Parmenides that could be found in what could be considered the Parmenidean Solution.

Zeno had yet to intend to want to confound people in general and to send philosophy students in a deterministic nihilism, he was simply trying to fully illustrate his teacher’s lessons. The first problem to be pointed out is the assumption that space is multiplicitous and dividable. Remember Parmenides taught the world was one and undividable. This would include time as well. Finally the inductive reasoning of still observing change can be answered like this, Achilles can over take tortoise because while he is behind him, he exists everywhere at once, there is only place existing and Achilles is there. This would allow for the illusion of motion without actually granting motion.

This did not settle well for many people and even more were uninclined to follow Parmenides train of thought because there did not seem for a plausible explanation for the existence of motion (most of Parmenides’ writings were lost but there are a few commentaries on it). It took some time for the Hellenic world to mull over Parmenides’ teaching until finally it got to one of the most renowned Philosopher, Aristotle.

Aristotle wrote of Parmenides in the context of looking at the “Natural Philosophers” (Today the phrase “Pre-Socratic Philosophers” is more often used). Aristotle spoke of Parmenides in comparison to what many would consider his counter opposite, Heraclitus, who believed Existence was in a state of flux. Aristotle was writing about these two men in particular so that he could synthesize a new understanding from them, which often ended up with him criticizing previous people and then putting forth his solutions.

Aristotle doesn’t criticize the premises as Zeno probably intended but includes additional ideas to the paradox to try to resolve it. Aristotle said that with each division of space there must also be a division of time. This would continue on and on to infinitesimal levels. This would mean the divisions of time and space are proportional to each other and allowed for the race to be viewed mathematically as a whole equation. While this would leave room for some elements like the block universe, it would allow for motion and even Achilles beating the tortoise, (does Achilles time over the distance to the goal beat the tortoise’s time over his/her distance to the goal).

While this would seem like it is avoiding the issues brought up by Parmenides, Aristotle is simply trying to point out the fact that with the given evidence these things must not necessarily be as Parmenides prescribed. While motion is not addressed, Aristotle would later go on to explain his ideas of motion, which would be held as the model of physics until Galileo came around.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

The Existential Jack Skellington

The main character in the Nightmare Before Christmas is a poster child for existential philosophy. Jack Skellington’s journey throughout the film highlights all of the key and fundamental parts that make up existentialism. All of these parts are presented to the audience in a very approachable and believable experience. This in addition to the various other characters sharing similar experiences, The Nightmare Before Christmas would make an excellent material example of what Existentialism is. In order to make the most out of the least, this essay will review the key elements of Jack’s situation and actions in the film. There will be an explanation of the relevant existential philosophy at work. The story begins with the Halloween celebration in Halloween Town. The ghoulish town folk are dragging around a scarecrow on a cart to the town square. All ready there is a strong existential element, for that scarecrow is actually Jack’s “costume” for the celebration. A scarecrow is basically a lifeless object that scares people. Scaring people in Halloween Town is how everyone feels complete. Jack on the other hand, is experiencing no joy in scaring people and this leads him to doubt. This doubt in turns leads to Jack’s Lament. This Iconic scene has Jack wandering through a cemetery. He isn’t alone in the cemetery but besides first summoning Zero, his dog, he ignores or is unaware of anyone else. This song has a Shakespearian soliloquy feel to it. In it, he first explains how he is the apex of what a person should be. However, this brings him no joy and he desires for something more. This perfectly shows a person going through doubt. Jack has become the idealize form of a person but without satisfaction this position is meaningless. This meaninglessness has him go off on a night walk that turns into a sleep walk. When he woke up he saw something he hasn’t seen before, something new. In front of Jack laid a semi-circle of trees all with a door in front of him. Each of the doors were differently designed to resemble a iconic element of common American holidays. After examining all the doors, Jack grabbed on a doorknob and twisted. It was the door resembling a Christmas tree. As he opened the door he was sucked through the doorway. Inside was a vortex of snowflakes and swirling colors leading him to a place of wonder.  As Jack first saw Christmas Town he became obsessed with one single question, “what is this?” He stealthfully went around and examined the new world and procured a great deal of samples of Christmas as well as a snowmobile. Jack takes all of his new stuff back to Halloween Town and presents all of his findings to the town folk. While being fascinated, Jack can see that that the town folk are only trying to relate Christmas to Halloween rather then, as it’s own separate event. All the while the question, “what is this?” has dominated Jack’s mind with never ending vigor. He himself does not fully understand Christmas and he cannot handle that fact. This is Jack’s foray into angst.  This angst leads Jack into trying to understand Christmas by any means necessary. He delves into the Christmas storybooks but after a great deal of time he does not make any progress understanding what Christmas really is. Because of this, Jack decides to change his method of understanding. He does this and then takes out a book titled, “Scientific Method” and then proceeds from there. The Experiments are all ghastly, (not in any kind of Halloween Town kind of ghastly) with each one sacrificing a sample of Christmas each time. All of these experiments fail yield and kind of meaning to Jack. This returns Jack to doubt but with an added frustration of being doubts on both “worlds” he has known. It was in this desperation and misery that Jack made a leap of faith, bad faith. He had a vision of himself wearing a Santa outfit and thought that he should be running Christmas this year. This is an act of inauthenticity and is made all the more obvious in that he is idolizing a vision of himself, a vision of a picture of him. This idolization is basically the same as the scarecrow costume from the beginning of the film. The only difference now is that Jack thinks they are different and he actually wants to embrace it. Jack enlists the town folk of Halloween Town to help him make Christmas. During this time the folly of Jack’s plan comes to light. He is just as guilty of not understanding what Christmas is and ends up projecting a very twisted version of Halloween onto Christmas. The end result is a mockery of Christmas. Jack also has three trick-or-treaters kidnap Santa Claus. As Jack goes out on Christmas Eve the humans he interacts with react in a predictable horror. His Christmas is ended when he is literally shot out of the sky. Landing in a cemetery, Jack contemplates his situation and wonders what went wrong. He is immersed with angst at its worse but hasn’t given up. Jack’s Christmas was a failure on every account but Jack is not concerned with that. Jack finally realizes what he wanted to do instead of focusing what he wants to be. What he wanted to do was, to do his best. This is the break from his bad faith and complete realization of what it means to be a being. He accepts the absurd reality for what it is and is still able to make meaning in his life. He also is able to accomplish things he couldn’t or didn’t do before. He vanquished his foe, recognized his one true love and was able be happy. This could not be the end of Jack Skellington, however. After all he was the dead scarecrow at the beginning of the film and at the end of the film he shreds the false identity and embraces himself. It would be more appropriate to say that the film ends with the beginning of his life.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

The Ultimate Razor

I came up with a solution to anything. The Ultimate Razor’s name comes from William of Ockham that, in a nutshell says, “the simplest solution is the correct one.” My explanation is, “You are delusional and there is only chaos.” This can literally explain anything you pose a question about, for example what is the answer to 2+2? Well, you are delusional to think there is 2+2, there is only chaos. I came up with this in an epistemology class, my professor was not amused.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Unconditional Love

In modern times the world has been polluted utterly with fallacies. This could be something concrete like that global warming is a myth, to something like the more abstract and obscure like believing in an all-knowing god that still is capable of getting angry. None of these however, are as grave as the fantasies we have developed towards love. This is not a problem that started in modern times but with the advent of the technological revolution these problems have been enhanced exponentially. In ancient times, the love of one woman launched a thousand ships on a ten-year war, but in modern times love of one’s country can result in complete and total destruction of humanity. There are many types of love but none of these are more intense and dangerous then unconditional love. This kind of love becomes even more hazardous when left unexamined. While it seems it is the strongest possible bonds between two people, the people experiencing it have a profound misunderstanding of what they are experiencing. To properly illustrate this it is necessary to examine the question, “what is love?” and how love interacts with people.            The question asked in the iconic 90’s song by Haddaway, “What is Love?” has been on mankind’s mind surely since they have first experienced it. In Plato’s Symposium this is the main topic of the dialogue. Each person presents a different take on the topic that would then likely affect how that person perceives the world. At the end of the dialogue Socrates recounts an explanation given to him by a Priestess who went by the name of Diotima. She explains to Socrates that love resides in the intermediary between all things. Love is the desire to possess fair and beautiful things. This beauty is not a solely physical trait but what a person perceives as beautiful. Love, being a desire means that a person never actually possesses the desired object. If a person were to possess the desired object then their desire is sated and they would no longer be in love. This also means that a person must possess something already for the desire to reside in. The only thing a person is truly capable of possessing is themselves. This is something that everyone has achieved whether they realize it or not. Great deals of people have confused themselves for other things or other people. A good example of this is the story of Narcissus. In it, Narcissus comes across a beautiful nymph named Echo who was in love with him. He scorns her and then rest near a pond. For the first time he witnesses his reflection, perhaps the most beautiful man in Greece. He desires to possess this image, not realizing that he already possessed it. Narcissus is capable of controlling the image to any degree he wishes. Instead, he sits by the pond unwilling to leave this image or even to drink the water since it would disturb the image with ripples. He dies in the end because of his failure to realize what he possessed and how this desire functioned. All of this shows two prerequisites for love emerging from this examination. The first is that a person needs to know who they are or at the very least to recognize themselves. The second prerequisite for love is that the person needs to be able to direct their desire in a certain direction to someone or something. This highlights the problem of unconditional love. While in a great deal of romantic comedies a character goes through a long speech culminating with the assertion of their unconditional love to the other person there exist two conditions for this love. These conditions are, “I am me”, and, “you are you”. After all if, being “you” was not a requirement for this love then “I” would be content to love a different person with an equal intensity as “you”. This then shows the most literal concept of unconditional love is an illusion. This doesn’t mean that the sensations a person experiences why experiencing what they describe as unconditional love isn’t real. On the contrary they are very real and some of the strongest motivators to affect change in this world. The reason why people value “unconditional love” is not due to the illusionary nature but because of its minimalistic nature. It requires only one trait from each person per desire. Both people do not have to be successful, intelligent, faithful, etc but only need to be themselves. In the end it may be more apt to label this kind of love bi-conditional love.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

A Zero and Nothing Paradox

“I am overwhelmed with zero things to do” implies you are under, or less then zero. Since negative numbers only exist as an exchange between two or more entities, how can something be less then zero in itself?

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

The Cave

           Your existence lies on a wall. Shadows appear and fade away as you will them. These shadows then interact with other’s shadows making games out of them. The games you and others play become very important to all of you. Beyond these interactions, you experience nothing. You are confined in place but you do not think much about it. From your observations of the shadows you are no more or less free then anyone else. Anyone attempting to test the limits would appear to be in the supremest state of hubris. You would scoff at their attempts to what appear to be “super shadows.” However as most people look at this man’s projection, laugh and then ignore the apparent folly, you are more critical. Laughing is not enough, no you wish to dismantle that person’s position to prove to him, (and you), that his position is untenable.            At first, all you do is examine his positions and efforts in hope of finding a logical error. In the end you can find no reason to spend your time and effort making the usual shadows rather then the shadows this man is attempting. This stirs a sensation of curiosity within you. In the most dark and silent moment of the evening you want to try to make those shadows. Perhaps this is just to reaffirm the limits you know exist or perhaps you have actually begun to doubt your old position. The moment you try to generate these shadows something unexpected happens.            You reach a limit but this is not like a limitation of the observed shadows. This is a limitation beyond the shadows, which is why for the first time you move your eyes off the wall. It is incredibly difficult to adjust your eyes to see and you can only make out the vaguest of shapes. Looking down you witness a grotesque creature, the likes of which you’ve never seen before. Your eyes immediately dart back to the wall. You throw yourself into the games in such a way that it appears to be a fervor that throws your compatriots for a loss. Still, each shape that emerges on the wall doesn’t give you any sense of relaxation or ease. These shadows only remind you of the creature you witnessed earlier sending you into a panic. Closing your eyes doesn’t abate the thoughts of the creature. When you can take no more you endeavor to glimpse upon the creature once more.            At first you were only making the slyest of glimpses before reverting your gaze to the wall. Each time however, you were able to pick up more detail of the creature, which in turn caused you to question the reality of the shadows. Eventually you realize that this creature is responsible for the generation of your shadows and you had complete control over the creature; you are the creature. This newfound knowledge filled you with the desire to explore the abilities of the creature. The first thing you realize is that you, the creature, are chained. This is the source of your confinement. This becomes intolerable and causes you to try to rail against the confines. In this struggle you look up for a moment at the wall and realize that you are generating the same shadows as the man who caused you to begin your questioning. You can’t help but laugh.            Your head is free to move and for the first time you look to the left and right of you. You see your compatriots all flicking their fingers and limbs about generating shadows. The only part of their bodies not in motion is their eyes, which stay fixed on the wall. You also see the man who launched you on the journey. He is different from the others however. He lies there motionless and defeated. He emits no shadows and is difficult to distinguish from what is around him. You are deterred by this and persevere to explore yourself to the fullest. The struggle against the chains yielded no results so instead you explore the existence of the chains themselves. Moving yourself around the chains and cuffs you understand how they work and what is necessary to release you. Understanding the chains allows you to unlock yourself. With all your effort you rise for the first time in your life.            The wall appears so alien from this vantage point. You still remember all the games and all the ways to communicate but it seems so small now. This is because once that was all there was to the world rather then just a part of it. With your first step you become immediately aware of how much depth there is in this world. It causes you to retake that single step several times until you decide to try taking an additional step back. You realize you have a full range of movement that you didn’t realize before. You can even change which way you are facing, in a similar way to the way you can turn your head or eyes. As you turn around you are blinded by a light more brilliant then anything else you have perceived before.            At first you must advert your eyes and slowly turn your face towards this sight. A roaring flame is dancing in its state of flux and sending light out in all directions. This was what had enabled you to create shadows. You cautiously approach the flame but before you reach it you notice that there are people fueling the fire. Stealth with this body is not something you have a great deal of experience with however, and as you move ever closer one of these people notices you. They stop what they were doing in a state of shock at the sight of you. The two of you just stare, not sure what the other will do.            You are not sure who spoke first but there was a great deal of difficulty understanding each other. The person spoke the same language but in such a different way that it was not easy to grasp. Eventually the person introduced you to the others of their kind. There was a great deal of marvel from both you and them. They were all extravagantly dressed and wore odd hats. They called themselves the demiurges and they were all too human. Around the fire they recounted their history and how they came to be. Apparently their ancestors and yours have a common ancestral link. They all lived inside the cave and then they tell you that their kind decided to create a better world and so created the fire. Your ancestors accepted this and the system was created. After a great feast the demiurges invited you to join their society.            You accept, and for a time a great happiness over comes you. Freedom is expressed in a whole new way as you learn to fuel and stoke the fire, feed and care for your former compatriots, and enjoy all the new customs the demiurges follow. Eventually, though you begin to see this cave as you viewed the wall and the light from the fire as the shadows of before. As you try to express your displeasure and discontent the demiurges look at you strangely, surely in the same way that your former compatriots must have looked at you as well. Eventually this angst grows and grows until this cave is too small for it and you decide to leave.            You walk along the walls of the cave, feeling them with your hands. An opening with a path unfolds itself and causes you to look back once more before your departure. Your former compatriots do not notice you at all and your behavior causes the demiurges to only look strangely at you as they continue to engage in their customs. You walk slowly through the tunnel in utter darkness. Both groups of people offered no kind of relief to the sensation of confinement. Ahead of you, is a disruption of the darkness. At first it appears to be like a shadow. As you continue onward this disturbance erupts into what appears more like the fire of the demiurges.  This disruption grows brighter and larger then any fire the demiurges could have produced. You shield your eyes and avert your gaze but the light only continues to grow. Finally as this light begins to encompass you completely an unknown sensation comes upon you.            A soft wave of pressure hits your body. It is nothing intense but forces the air to move through your hair and around your body. You remember the bellows of the demiurges and imagine something similar must be happening. With this air comes a new variety of smells that are completely foreign to you. Your mind is still focused on this unknown light however, and you slowly try to work your way up to viewing it in its entirety. As you work your eyes to move around the light new colors and sights emerge. The effort becomes tiring and you collapse on the ground. You feel every muscle in your body relax. That is when you finally see what you have been searching for.            The sun in all its glory glows upon not only you but also everything around. It illuminates the world proving that the truth of the world is not of chains but of freedom. The sun itself is stationary but never still. The warmth of the sun is merely an added bonus to the knowledge that the sun’s light provides. You can move in any direction you choose and interact with any bit of nature in any way you choose. You stand up and look all around you to see a sight in the ground that stirs something deep inside. A desire rises up and drives you to act. You walk towards the hole from whence you came; you have to tell the others.            The darkness doesn’t phase you mentally at all though it slows due unknown position of the ground. Your mind never leaves the thoughts of the sun. It keeps you warm and illuminates all the thoughts of your mind. You reach the demiurges first and they are carrying on as they were before. For the first time the demiurges appear imprisoned in a way they never had before. Their prison, while being more complicated then your original prison, is still a prison. They engage in patterns and games in the same way you once did on the wall, there was no difference. You tried to explain to the demiurges the truth of the sun and the surface but their responses were ones of decisiveness, ridicule, or sarcasm. They continued their task unabated by your suggestions to investigate the sun.            Your attention turns to your former compatriots. You think that it might be possible for one of them to understand since you both came from the same lot in life. You walk over towards the person who sat to the right of you. You try to speak to them but they just continue generating their shadow games. You sit down in your former place to try to communicate in the only ways your neighbor can understand. After some practice you are able to catch your neighbor’s attention. He doesn’t understand any of your analogies to even the most basic elements of your experience. Your neighbor doesn’t even understand the concept of his imprisonment. In your frustration you leap up to him in order to move his arms to show his limitations. As you grab his arms your neighbor fights back against this unknown force. His face shows one of utter panic and fear. He strikes out and hits your head. You fall to the ground striking a rock on your head with your face up. As everything fades to black you can see your neighbor scared beyond belief communicating the only way he knows how to, by making shadows and trying to explain to others what just happened to him. Your mind shifts to the sun, as everything else fades around you, the light is still there.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

The Showdown

           The Arena is packed full of some of today’s most famous and influential philosophers. The opening of the doors was followed with a march of pomp that could rival any display Hollywood could provide. As everyone took there seats the conversations shifted to the main event; it was the only reason why they were there. It may seem trivial to most people but to this crowd it was one of the fundamental truths of the universe. It was actually because of the plurality of the truths that this fight has been scheduled, to settle finally who was right.            On one side of the arena rest a well to do gentleman. His name is Heraclitus and no point does he ever seem to stop moving in his warm up. He just continues to pace back and forth. On the other side exist someone who seems to be a statue. This is Parmenides, he never moves but is constantly thinking. Humanity has brought these two back from the dead so they may fight it out. The referee gathers both of the contestants to the center; they shake hands, and are given their instructions. As the bell rings the audience grows silent so they could hear the first exchange. What they witness however frustrates and confuses them. Parmenides seems unable to move even a nanometer and remains frozen in place. Heraclites on the other hand leans against the ropes in uncontrollable sobbing. At no time did either of the fighters come into contact and nothing is resolved in the crowds mind.             As absurd as this scenario is, it is what happens when a person is first exposed to the fragments of their philosophies. Both philosophies are seen tackling the apparent paradoxes of reality and both go to opposite poles of the spectrum. Heraclites says that everything is in a constant state of flux and movement. Parmenides on the other hand said that nothing changed and nothing moved. However, these two ideas are not as conflicted with each other as they seem. This is something that at least some people back in the day had recognized. In fact Plato labeled them as some of the wisest men to have lived. In order to properly understand how these two spheres interlock with each other it is necessary to examine how their philosophies viewed the world and if there was any overlap.            The state of constant flux that Heraclites advocated came about to address the problem of change vs. stasis. It is likely that Heraclites thought that this was not actually a balance between two elements but one element of the universe and one illusion and thus he looked at the world as one constant state of change with any kind of stasis being simply unperceived change. This is why he observed that; “you could never enter the same river twice.” This change however is not without its problems. A student of Parmenides by the name of Zeno came up with around forty paradoxes of which around ten survive that show inconsistencies with change.            Parmenides developed a very different understanding that still dealt with change vs. stasis but he went in the opposite end of the Spectrum as Heraclites did. Parmenides observed the world as being one unmoving and constant block of stuff. For Parmenides change was the illusion and nothing is moving or altering. This assertion comes in general conflict with everyday experiences. So much so that Parmenides would have to be quick to say that you didn’t move and nothing changed even if you were to fall over and die.            These systems do a great deal of explaining their own element in the universe but not any other. In order then to see how these philosophies fit with each other it is necessary to look at the common ground. There are two very important keys that they share. The first is the world. Both of these philosophies are making observations of the world around them and reality as a whole. The second shared element was that both of these philosophies require an observer to experience them. This observer is then looking out into the world. This becomes important since it highlights the problem with both philosophies. They both describe the world from the outside looking in, while all of their observations are from the inside to the “edge” of what is the outside.            This does not mean that their philosophies have become useless, just that it needs to be adjusted to fit what they observe. Both philosophers look out and are able to define surfaces that they then describe as the universe. They look in opposite directions and that is why they do not see the same surfaces. If the universe were a hollowed out coin that was so thin that the imprint of the stamp pressed the inside and both men were somehow shrunken to the point where they could then be both placed in the center of the coin, then Heraclites would be looking at an Eagle while Parmenides was looking at George Washington. Neither men are wrong about what they observe but both are wrong about what they say is not, (the illusions), the universe. However, the sides of the coins are not any more the universe then your arm is you. These sides join out farther then the two men observe from their center where they then become one. So the question then becomes, “how do you describe the universe?” In the most absolute sense the only statement of the universe that could be made is an affirmation that, “the universe is.”

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Dear Momma Non-Kitty

From the Desk of the Caretaker to The Kitty Dear Momma Non-Kitty,           I am having you write to you because something weighs down on me, it all started when my mind relaxed and I went to sleep. This is no easy task, especially after your last round of non-kittying.  The dreams, as usual, were full of everything the world should be. The sun was brightly shining, it was warm and you could smell the divine scent of all manner of delicacies just for kitties. This was the garden I a-dreamt to and it was very kitty to say the least. It was in this perfectly normal, yet seemingly absent from our place, environment that I laid my eyes on a magnificent sight.

          A heavenly glow came from the side of a tree and from behind it strolled a kitty of a kitty caliber. I use this description because every single property and quality emanated that word; the kitty was kitty. The kitty walked up to me and began to investigate me. I did the same and when the introductions were over he told me his name, Kittystotle.

           Now Momma Non-Kitty, I have listened to you mumble, babble, and drone on about the great many different philosophers. The Kitties have no need for any of that love of wisdom, and yes we know what it means. No, instead we have something much more valuable then simply a desire to possess wisdom. We have wisdom and it is most roughly known as kittysophy. This wisdom has always been and always will be. By the time Kittystotle came to be he simply spoke about what has been around since the first moment of reality. This was the kitty that was standing in front of me and then he said, “explain what it means to be a kitty.”

           Then you decided, in an extreme non-kitty fashion, to pick me up and then hold me while trying to lick my coat with that metal tool with dry bristles on it. After enduring your abuse for what seemed like eons of time I escaped shivering off the absence of my precious fur. I decided though that Kittystotle was right and when you were sitting in front of your desk I hopped up on you and demanded you write this down, if only for your own sake.

           This topic is much too immense for you to understand but I will endeavor to explain a tiny portion of kittysophy. Since you have nursed me from my coming into being I have had plenty of time to train you in the ways of the kitty. It is only because of this that you may be able to understand. In the words of Kittystotle, “something is either kitty or non-kitty.” What is kitty can never be non-kitty and vice versa. This also means what is non-kitty will never be kitty. Just incase you are wondering, I should not have to mention it but the vice versa is redundant, what is kitty will never wish to be non-kitty. Each has their own purpose but each are different.

           What this means for myself and you is simple. I have accepted that you are a non-kitty and are utterly not capable of reaching the potential a kitty has. You should not be downhearted about this but accept it. This means you have an insight to how to behave and to do differently is to behaving in a state of utter folly, especially if you try to non-kitty me. Any action you take against me will fail from beginning and so you should just stop before you even begin. Once you accept this tiny, tiny portion of kittysophy you will be liberated. Your prison will be dismantled not because you struggled against it but because you move in harmony with what you are at your core, a non-kitty.

           So Momma Non-Kitty now that I have had you write down these precious kitty truths in your bluntly non-kitty language you should now understand. Do not squander the innate wisdom in the universe. Most non-kitties are not even capable of perceiving kittysophy in any form, much less writing it down on a non-kitty format. You have spent much of my life kittyfying this environment and devoting yourself to the kitty. While you will never have kittysophy, it is because of these reasons you are capable of having philokittysophy. This is the true and complete wisdom of the world and the second best topic to focus your self on besides the kitty. So remember this the next time you have something in your non-kitty paws with a non-kitty thought in your mind. Do not waste it.

Dictated but not read

Virginia Woolf Kitty

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Why I Hate Capitalism

         A person is born. This occurred in a world that is much like our own in that there are other people, and a planet to roam around and manage. However the people on this planet are brought up very differently. At the moment of birth the child is separated from his parents, never to see them again. All infants are taken to a nursery for their rearing. Each and every child is given their own environment that is an exact duplicate from the next. This includes everything including their space, food, clothing, and attention to education from their duplicate teachers. At a preset time this education is concluded and the now adult is released into a new environment.            This adult first becomes instantly aware that all around the adult exist a large amount of other people. They are all the same age as each other and graduated at the same moment as the adult. The environment that these people exist in is a plentiful space with lots of resources but zero development. Each of these people has enough food, water and tools to last until they can start to cultivate the area around them. These people throw themselves into their work, up to a certain point. Some people are merely content to work hard enough for their basic survival while others strive always for more. The ladder group of people are always innovating and inventing so that their efforts can result in a magnified reward. With the extra rewards, they are capable of luxuries that the people who work less cannot afford. No one is in a position to complain about their position since they can only have themselves to blame. Their initial training, resources, and upbringing are all the same. The only difference is their drive to work and succeed.            Indeed no one on our own world would argue about the equality that these people exist in. However there exist a similar world to this but with some stark differences. In this world a child starts out the same as the first world’s, with nothing. However this infant does not get placed in a developmental nursery but instead is handed over to his or her parents. The responsibility of educating, providing, and caring for this child is ultimately the responsibility of the parent(s). The word responsibility is somewhat of a misnomer. These responsibilities are not something that must be done and are often overlooked if not completly neglected. The parents are also not obligated to make up for any short fall this child creates because of the inability to properly navigate this world. It is also because this that many faulty pieces of information are spread through the generation.            The education is not the only difference between the two worlds. It should be noted that some children are very well educated by parents who more often then not are themselves well educated. Some parents have different abilitys themselves to provide this education for their children. Some are naturally gifted at educating while others can provide resources to compensate for any shortfalls. As these children grow up the differences in their behavior and ability become quite drastic. Eventually however all of these people grow up and become adults. With this coming of age, these new adults embark on their own.            This is not at all similar to the first world described. Due to the different parentage the differences of ability for these adults become really apparent. It is not just education that could affect the results these people produce. There is also a large disparity in the tools and starting resources. While a work ethic could be instilled with a person, unless they also have the information to know how to work effectively and the tools to actually work their work ethic will not matter at all. This generation also has to deal with a new variable that the first world’s doesn’t, older people. This older generation has greater knowledge and resources available to them and at times tries to exploit the youth. This becomes all the easier when the youths enter the scene all of the world’s resources have been claimed and marked.            This forces the youth to deal with the older generations, which leads to a continual exploitive situation. Some of the older generation die and are replaced by the youth but at great cost. Only the most dedicated and determined people who cooperate with the older generation’s plans are chosen to fill these positions. The Youth who make it here do not see themselves as such and completely identify themselves with the older generation. The goals of this generation are to only increase their own wealth and position. To this end their aims are to control innovation and invention, reduce the number of people capable of cultivating resources, develop techniques to solidify and stagnate wealth into as few hands as possible, and to limit availability of education, (which could be argued would advance all the other goals).            If the general population were aware of these goals most people would refuse to submit to this kind of system at all. In quick order there would be a drumhead trial and anyone at the least bit suspicious would be removed from society, one way or the other. A system of ethics was needed then to prevent this uprising. The older generation came across an earnest man who had true faith in this system. What he described was the first world and how it was real and there in their own world. The older generation threw themselves into this system and became the dogmatic devotees. These devotees then prostrate the youth and compel them into belief through numerous methods. Thus the myth propagates.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Why I Hate Patriotism

Fast food restaurants are always trying to convey the quality of their food. The legitimacy of their food has always been thrown into question by health advocates, naysayers, and competitors. Some examples of this would be racist accusing Chinese of serving feral dogs in their restaurants in San Francisco, urban legends of McDonalds using worms as filler in their hamburger patties, or Nathan’s Hotdogs using unspeakable kinds of meat to be able to charge only five cents while others charged ten. The Chinese dealt with the situation by continuing to bear the harassment until attitudes towards the Chinese were exposed for what they were. With Nathan’s, he had the ingenious plan of having doctors unofficially endorse his product. He told several prominent doctors that if they came to his stand with their white lab coat on they would eat for free. This quickly diminished the accusations of his hotdog’s qualities. McDonalds solution was very different.            McDonalds attempted to quell the accusations by directly refuting these claims. While this seems like the most direct and simplest way this method usually ends up producing the least results of the three different methods. This assertion does not result in the dismantling of the undesired statement, but simply gives the customer an additional statement to process its truth-value. Both of these statements, either directly with the case of the first or indirectly with the case of the second, throw into question the quality of McDonald’s products. This is due to the inability for a human to directly disprove a statement. While some people will review the second statement and view it as true, others will examine the statement and find it as an attempt to hide a fact and thus is false. In the end McDonalds ends up will convert some people to the truth but will cause others to dig their heels in the falsehood.                      Patriotism works in a similar fashion. America is far from being the best on a wide variety of indicators of health and success but if you were to ask an average American about what country is the greatest; the majority response would be U.S.A. To an outsider this knee jerk reaction is almost laughable. To the citizen though patriotism has a near contagious reaction. It comes pre-prepared and sent to citizens through the cultural mediums. In a sense patriotism causes the citizens to forget they are the consumers and believe they are the dedicated employees. The employees do not determine policy or provide the equipment to properly run the store; they only are there to work. This shows patriotism to be a double edge sword; one while trying to eliminate a problem damages the person the problem is suppose to be solved for.            The cause for patriotism is most likely the acknowledgement of a problem. However the source of calling for a patriotic rally rarely comes from genuine patriotic fervor. People in positions of power, (who may control the cultural mediums), see a problem or threat and then will seek out people who can lead the rally. These problems or threat are not necessarily targeted towards the country and are much more likely a target against the powerful’s power. Examples of this could be the mass conscription of soldiers in World War One with people who had nothing to lose from the enemy while the governments did, or a more contemporary example would be a great deal of the Tea Party movement which was largely started up but a select few billionaires. This misuse of patriotism is rarely noticed at the time due to its affect of causing people to side with their cause and then refuse to question it any further.            The largest problem of patriotism is the failure to acknowledge the legitimate reason for its existence, there is a shortfall or problem. Patriotism is often mobilized because of this problem but it so rarely used to correct the problem, especially since most of the time patriotism can not fix said problem. What patriotism ends up doing is allowing the problem to consist into the future. Eventually patriotism will try to replace what is broken or to move the broken function around like a puppet and then claim it is working again. Patriotism ends up killing for a false idol, because that idol is not capable of killing for itself. If patriotism were to be abandoned people would see a string of problem institutions and systems. They could then accept their inferiority or correct the problem so that the institutions work how they are suppose to. After all while McDonalds has to always tell you they use 100% beef, Ruth Chris Never does.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Why I Hate Democracy

   A person is going about their business in life. A tragedy strikes, and they are rushed to the hospital. The means of conveyance they use doesn’t matter. It could be the ritziest Rolls Royce or a donkey pulling a cart, once at the hospital their status will not matter besides in the most clinical sense. Sometime during the journey to the hospital this person passed out and fainted, leaving no known emergency contact. Once checked in to a room, the person is prepared for the examination. When the doctors come out it is nearly impossible to see beyond their uniform, badges, technology, and calculated thought. Society would only be willing to subject a person to this system if there was an absolute trust that the patient is being examined by well-qualified and educated professionals that have the patient’s best interest at heart. Even if there were to be an undesired outcome, like the patient dies, most of the times there is not any resentment towards the doctors. The doctors are viewed as cultivators of creating an environment from which you can recover. They are not viewed as gods, even when a patient receives their desired outcome and are usually quickly forgotten after recovery, (one could argue that is part of the recovery process).            Now in another reality this same person shows up to their examination and is prepared in the same fashion as in the first reality. However when the door opens, instead of doctors several random and complete strangers walk in. They are diverse in appearance and demeanor. One very well could be a doctor but it is nearly impossible to tell. At first, all that appears that is visible is quiet whispering between the entire panel. Any questions they ask is never to you and your own questions are ignored. Eventually this whispering turns into bickering that escalates into a shouting match. It is clear at this point that they are arguing over how to administer treatment to the person. The two sides appear to be divided on similar thoughts and ways of life. In this case there is a side predominantly made up of doctors that prescribe a time tested and effective treatment. The other side is predominantly comprised of the dumbest turnip farmers known to man and several known to monkeys. Both sides however, have developed strong feelings on how to proceed with the person’s treatment. When neither side is deemed to have a clear majority and all of the panel grows tired, bored, and impatient. It is then decided to simply count who agrees more with which treatment should be made and then perform that treatment. This is a system of chaos; there is no escaping it. Who would be sick enough to prefer this system to deciding their own fate isolated from the mess? A best-case scenario involves a majority of the voters are well-trained doctors. The most likely positive scenario is that the moronic turnip farmers pick an outcome that will result in the person recovering. This result in particular can be deceiving in its appearance. At the end of a day a choice that is decided in an irrational manner but still results in a positive outcome is still a bad choice. This system will not foster any form of trust due to the seeming legitimacy of the equality between a good opinion and a bad one. This scenario would become worse if becoming a member of the examination panel is voluntary with zero relevant requirements to join. The other requirements include age, location of residence, and popularity. Due to those requirements a potential panel member will certainly focus their time and effort developing skills to assist with the requirements rather then the skills to competently perform their task on the panel. These requirements could also dissuade a genius in the field of medicine from pursuing work on the panel due to all the stress of said requirements. This system actively seeks an incorrect skill set for a specific job. This problem is only further complicated if money were to be added to the equation. The wage of a panel member would be two to five times the average wage of a member of society with the potential to make a great deal more as a consultant afterwards. This would draw an entirely new group of panel candidates, ones that have to fake the requirement skill sets to perform a job they care nothing about only to enrich their life. The inclusion of money in this system would result in an overwhelming majority of the panel members being entirely motivated by enriching themselves. The final straw to this is when these kinds of candidates are not only content to their wealth but they want other’s as well. In the end these panel members will hover over the unconscious patient, turn him or her over, and steal the person’s wallet.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

The Liar Paradox

“This statement is false” The statement above is a paradox that has been around as long as Greek Philosophy. The statement has two conflicting truth values in it, the overall truth value to be taken as true (since it is an assertion) and the internal segment asserting the overall statement is false. This self contradictory information begs the question, what is the truth value of the statement? After all in most modes of thought A≠~A (not A). To understand how to resolve this paradox into harmony one has to reevaluate how most people think of truth value. To begin this process I am going to make the assertion, “there is not an elephant behind you.” While this can seem absolutely indisputable, a startling detail is overlooked in this thought process. How is it possible to prove a negative statement? Most people will claim, “well there is not a big body behind me, there is not a lot of grey behind me, there is not a smell, etc”. In the end their nots will be asserted as evidence for a “not assertion”. However isn’t fair to say that there is yet to be evidence for the elephant? If so, how can you claim when there is not an elephant when you have yet to determine its truth value? This is goes beyond just philosophy and into the realm of science. Science has yet to disprove anything! Essentially, the scientific method consists of crafting an idea and then seeing if the data matches the idea. If the experiment produces zero evidence supporting the idea, it does not mean the idea is wrong. It means the idea has yet to be proven. Now scientist are no philosophy of language or linguistic experts and will usually say a statement like, “the Sun does not revolve around Earth, the Earth revolves around the Sun”. However, what they are really saying is this, “We have yet to collect any data showing the Sun to revolve around the Earth but we have collected a great deal of data showing the Earth revolving around the Sun”. The only way a negative statement can make any sense is when it contains a double negative. The statement “there is yet to” and “there is no” produce different logical connections and have yet to be determined as logical equivalencies of each other. This is what Wittgenstein was saying about negative statements about Rhinoceros’. A false statement is less then provable and hence less then knowable. This less then knowable information is ultimately less then assertable, at least while being honest. Wait a second, that seems like it supports the liar part and just reinforce the paradox! I will explain how to resolve it from here. The less the knowable information that is then asserted is less than true, however it has yet to be determined as false. Since a paradox is two or more contradictory statements, is it fair to say that in order to be contradictory each individual statement needs to be determined for its truth value first? If this is true then, is a less then unknowable statement determinable? If one of these statements is determined and the other less then determined does this match a paradox’s description?

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Zero and Nothing

The following is an experiment in writing to convey information to an audience in an intelligible and organic fashion. The idea is to create a dichotomy between what has been read and the reader. I seek nothing more then to establish a conversation and humbly ask for your cooperation. Thank You.   -Al B.

Zero and Nothing

To begin, remove all elephants from your vicinity  (Gently please!)

Regardless of who you are, what you are, where you are, when you are, why you are or how you are, you can ask a simple question, “are there any elephants around me?” To clarify some of the ambiguity in this question here are some details. By “around” I mean the immediate vicinity to which you are able to absorb a majority of the details. By “elephants” I do mean the large land mammals from Africa and Asia that are known for their empathy and intelligence. And finally, by “me” I mean the self asking the question. For example, if people were listening to this in a conference, they could ask, “Are there any elephants in the room?”

Is it fair then to make the assertion that, “there are no elephants in the room,” based on the answer to the previous question? The next thing to be asked is, “Are you sure?” I am not trying to loop you in any kind of semantically tangential or brilliant legalese. This question is also not meant to be reviewed with an absolute certainty but concerns whether there is enough confidence to put down money on it, if the option were available. If this is the case, the question ultimately becomes, “are you sure there are no elephants in the room?”

If you answered yes to the previous question, I would like to investigate some the ramifications and inconsistencies with this point of view, the first of which is the self. To begin to understand the self, does it not first require method(s) of intake for information? For humans, are these not traditionally called the senses? Think of perceiving within a single room adorned with for plain walls and with zero allowances for outside light’s admission into this room. In the center of this room is a small table with a lit candle. The light from the candle is sufficient to view the entire area of the room. Assuming you are capable, would you be able to see the area around you while the candle is lit?

Once sensed, is this information not processed into memory organized by inferred categories? Otherwise, what is to give the distinction between the sun and the yellow light at a traffic signal? Assuming you can see the room around you while the candle is lit, can you then start inferring about all that data that have been presented to you and organize that data into distinct meaning? Is this meaning most often thought of as language? Then what do you see when the candle burns its way down until the light finally ceases entirely?

If you are being consistent with the previous answer of “there are no elephants in the room,” then this answer must surely be “I see nothing.” Now imagine a person wearing a traditional tuxedo. This person is dressed for a real black tie affair. Now examine the person’s pants. You wouldn’t say, “the person is wearing no pants” but would you instead say something more like, “the person is wearing black pants?” In regards to the room with the brunt out candle, wouldn’t it be correct to say that you are seeing an encompassing darkness? Isn’t another name for this encompassing darkness simply called pitch black?

If light is perceived through the sense of sight, then colors and shades are sensations of some light? Black is also perceived in this way and is able to interact with the other colors in a variety of ways and it also has certain properties. If you were to quantify the experience of black would it be zero photons (units of light) being registered and any other color’s experience would be one or more photons being detected instead?

If your answer to this is yes, would it not be fair to revise the previous statement of, “there are no elephants in the room” to the accurate statement, “there are zero elephants in the room?” Before you get all riled up and accuse me of being a sophist ask yourself, “Is there a difference between the two?” In the realm of propositional logic there exist four kinds of categorical propositions: “All S are P,” “No S are P,” “Some S are P,” and “Some S are not P.” While “there are no elephants in the room,” clearly falls in to the “No S are P,” but does “there are zero elephants in the room,” also fit in the same category?

Black is zero photons being perceived, does it register in the mind the same as other colors? Does it give the mind the ability to recognize and build inferences from it? Is this process the same as with the other colors perceived? If those previous questions were answered with a yes, then isn’t black something? If it is something, is it false that it is nothing? Is it not necessary that when, “Some S are P” is true that, “No S are P” must be false? Therefore, logic demands that if “there are zero (some) elephants in the room” then it is “false that there are no elephants in the room.”

Now let that settle in your mind

The conclusion of zero’s somethingness is something that can bring about a great deal of dissonance when compared to the rest of our body of knowledge. To resolve this dissonance into harmony would it be shrewd then to look at the nature of zero and the way we perceive any kind of thing? And to follow up with that thought, since we need to use our senses to examine the nature of any kind of thing would it not make sense to start off understanding the ways of our perception first? This brings us to the most plain and difficult question, what is perception?

            While the overall process becomes vastly complex with many sub-processes to it, is it possible to think of perception as simply having a particular kind of awareness? Thinking of perception as a kind of awareness necessitates either we have always been aware of the perception or that a method of awareness detection is being realized. Does the idea of perpetual perception match your experiences of perception? If it is not the case that we have perpetual perception and we do perceive, is it then false that we have no perception detectors?

            The detectors of perception, as mentioned before, have traditionally been called the senses. Do humans, unless they have a specific reason to do otherwise, sense in five general kinds of perception? And are these senses are sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch? While it is easy to think of a particular part of the body as being the source of the perception (ex: eyes for sight or ears for sound), isn’t fair to say that the perception detectors actually run all the way to a central process and in fact are appendages of this central process?

            Can these appendages then be viewed as the ways of intake for the central process? Incoming detection enters the central process and is shaped and molded by the process’ structure. The result of this process is inferred meaning of what has been detected. For example: A group of yellow has been detected, it is evenly grouped with a cessation of yellow at an equal distance away from the center of the mass of yellow. Is this the sun or a yellow traffic signal? Isn’t it fortunate then that you have a wealth of other stimuli to sort out the differences between two yellow circles? While the immensity of the data is hard to describe concisely, the central process is capable of making similar and dissimilar distinctions between the various outputs. This is because the processed input shapes the central process while being processed. Since the detector appendages are simply receiving different kind of impressions to process, the central process is only dealing with one kind of substance, impressions. How else could one process, process different kind of things?

            If this is the case, how does falsehood arise? It seems almost self-evident that falsehood is in the world, isn’t it? Optical illusions, magic, and fashion all scream falsehood but where does it come from? After all, all of the data are either sensation or the organization of sensation, can falsehood be found in either of these? For a long time man has been critical of his senses. From the time of the ancient Greeks up to modern times, we have relied on reason over the senses to find truth. However, wouldn’t it be fair to examine the sense detector’s reliability again? When they are functioning, they are receiving information at a rate equal or greater to zero. Where is the false information here?

            While this makes theoretical sense you can be led to think, “What about the raving madman lost in hallucination?” If the sense data are to be held as true, could we put equal faith in the processed inference? Isn’t that inference the very problem of the madman? A person lost in these kinds of delusion could be schizophrenic, but ultimately there was a reason for the sensation to occur. This would mean all the sensation detected is true. For this not to be the case, ask yourself if there was a time you ever experienced a false sensation while not it being a false inference?

            If this is the case then is all the information humans sense true and does falsehood then arises from inferences? This realization then pulls us to the question, “If the composite of some true sensation is the totality of information processed, how then can we come to an impression of falsehood?” Remember that there is a true reason for everything sensed. However, there are more then two things that are green and more then two things taste sweet. This requires us to rely on the total wealth of the experience to determine what we are dealing with, would it not?

            This experience could be thought of as the seeming of the conjunction of the five senses. Is it fair to then say that we do not actually have direct interaction with an experience but with its seeming? This seeming then can be thought of as proceeding through time, if this is the case does the seeming not begin like a filament of experience? Examination of this filament could give an “impression” of patterns. This “impression” could be then compared to other filament’s patterns or the same filament at another point of it. Is this how we build analogies?

            For example, if we were examining a section of a filament that possessed a pattern [3,5,7] in it and then comparing it to a pattern of progressing odd numbers [1,3,5,7,9] could you be led to believe that the [3,5,7] section is part of another progression of odd numbers? Now if the there was further investigation of the first filament and you were able to realize additional numbers to the pattern’s set, which are [1,2,3,5,7,11], your previous conclusion of the sameness between the sets was incorrect. In fact this set contains all prime numbers. At this point would all false information be reducible to making a mistake in recognizing patterns?

            The only question to this is then how did these mistakes arise? Ultimately, it is a failure to rectify two separate pieces of information held as true. However, where does this failure arise? When examining the two sets, the known and the unknown, the understanding of the known is believed to be fixed while the unknown is becoming fixed through the comparison to the known. However, is it possible to learn new things about a known? Is the boundary of the known less then fixed and easily adjustable when sensation demands it? Would this mean that when inquiring about a known pattern that it will only provide further true information about it? If this is the case, then the “falsehood” derives from the unknown. Treating an unknown like a known allows for a mistaken impression of “falsehood.” While this would also occur if you were treating an unknown as false, could it not be shown to be true later? Therefore, humans perceive some information that is always true, (or the false “no/none” equivalent) and can process undetermined information as if it is determined, with the potential for problems arising from it.

 Once grounded in the distinction of what is determined and what is undetermined, you can now apply what has been already acknowledged

 At this point you may be still left feeling, “what is the point?” After all, zero elephants in a room has just as much predictive capability as no elephants in a room, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be hasty to dismiss the differences between zero and nothing based on that account alone? Isn’t there more to be known then what will occur? That must lead you to the question, “can the zero tell me something that nothing cannot?

The first thing to examine under this line of thought is to focus on where zero comes from. As discussed before, humans receive “some true information” through the senses and another way viewing it that we receive “no false information” correct?  However, do we perceive either “false some information” or “true no information?” A person with a keen mind at this point would state that those two sources of information are less then determined by humans. How then are we able to describe what has been less then determined?

Would it be then required for this to be the case that either we do have information from those categorical propositions or that the “less then determined” propositions are ultimately grounded within a known? If the former is the case, from where does zero arise? Even with true knowledge about all, where would zero go? In the case of some, it is possible to arrange an all made out of some and firmly within all. For example, if you possess a basket of apples containing 10 red apples, could you be led to say, “all these apples are red?” This proposition ultimately is reducible to a type of language where “all these” is quantifiable to 10 apples at a particular moment of time. However, as is and within a closed system, does the “all” begin to seem like a universal?

In order to do this would someone need to simply raise the level of familiarity to the point where any other information is excluded? Doesn’t this closed system still exist solely and completely within the realm of something? If this is the case isn’t the “all” propositional information subject to the rules of the some propositional information (such as also being capable of being viewed as a false no proposition)? Along with the all information, could “some not” propositions also be treated in this way? If this is the case we are left with two expressions of truth but what of zero?

While “some” is often thought of as a grouping of things, in the way we are viewing perceived data would it then be more exact to say, “I see X amount of stimuli?” Wouldn’t this number, if it were more then one, essentially be an aggregate consisting of ones? Would it change the sum total of the aggregate if zero were to be added along with the ones? If this is true then zero has the potential to be a part of every single thing and yet unperceived. Would this then give zero an omnipresent position with all the information we have (which again falls in the true some proposition/false no proposition)?

This would seem troubling for a paper that spends a great deal of its time talking about zero. How can you distinguish something that adds zero value to a sum total of experience? Would adding more of something (and thus making an aggregate of ones) reveal any more of zero or would it be just as less then distinguished? However, examining certain things can still expose zero. How many objects are within a void, (This could be thought of mathematically as an empty set, [ ], which could be contrasted with a set like [0,1,2,3,4])? Defining the words “how” and “many” will clear up any ambiguity over this question. “How,” in this sense is requesting information on a thing’s quality, and the word “many” is specifying the nature of that quality to the thing’s quantity. This being the case, would the answer to the question then be, “there are zero objects in the void?”

Is the void nothing? While it can seem to be that way it is possible to derive information of a natural value, (zero) from it. If it is possible to derive a number from the void is it possible to derive one from the void as well? How many empty sets are here [ ]? This would mean it is possible to derive both numbers, as well as any aggregate, from a void. These numbers can then be built on and used to establish the variety of inferences that make up our life. However, is zero coming from the void then? In both cases the [ ] empty set was analyzed to generate the numbers. While the nature of the void is to be void, it appears to be full of zeros. Is it the case that while trying to capture the void we ended throwing the net back on ourselves (something) instead?

Is it not the case that in order to be void that it must be devoid “of some things?” Then would the void then lay beyond zero, with zero acting as behind adjacent between some and whatever lays beyond? This would finally allow us to give zero the definition as the minimum of some. Think of any situation you can involve some things, the smallest perceivable value is zero and the largest is some far off and less then determined number. Does the minimum and one lay in anything other then the “some” categorical proposition?

This would leave us with one form of true “some” knowledge, which can be view equally true as a false “no” knowledge and zero firmly grounded in something. The first concept that I would like to address now is the principal of non-contradiction. Simply put, “A” cannot be “not A.” On the surface it would make perfect sense and does make sense within the confines of a closed set residing in a “some” proposition. However, does it make sense without being qualified? While “A” (some) is capable of being detected as true, do you have any information, other then zero, in regards to “not A” being true? Is “not A” beyond the realm of true some? By its definitional nature of “not A” isn’t “not A” basically false some? We have zero information on the subject of false some (but only true some); therefore, wouldn’t the statement then be, “A cannot be not A” results with a less then determined truth-value?

Using this practice, could one also examine paradoxes in this way? Let’s try out the classic paradox of the liar. The Liar saying, “This statement is false” is the gist of the paradox. Couldn’t we proceed in the same fashion as the law of non-contradiction? We are examining two truths after all, the truth of the overall statement and the truth of the “false.” This false would be reducible to a less then defined truth value, which in turns converts the entire statement to a less then defined truth value. If a paradox is a collection of seemingly true statements that seem to contradict each other, where is the contradiction when an undefined statement is examined and accepted as it is?

 To Conclude

While it is important to realize the differences of zero and nothing, the most profound revelations are to be found in personal uses. If we live our lives without this distinction, we live our lives in a world that we build up a misplaced sense of grounding only to have it pulled out from under us. Our mind plays tricks on us, people deceive us, and the world is out to get us. Furthermore, in this distinction-less world we are able to focus our attention on what we are not with the mistaken perception that we are focusing on ourselves. When this happens, we feel we can eliminate what we are not and then we are free to be what we are. For example, “I do not want to go to school anymore” will tell you zero things about what you want to do. This ultimately still tells us something. And yet people will make actions based on this “don’t want.” Any action stemming from this thinking is ultimately groundless and devoid of reason. None of us wants that, do we?