metaphysical mumbo-jumbo: 7/1/07

"I get where you're coming from..."

Daniel Dennett's "intentional stance*" is a great way to get inside someone's brain. I use it a lot, especially for deconstructing advertising.

Consider for instance the following conversation between ad agency executive and hollywood producer about promoting the upcoming release of the third in a series of movies.

Black ponytail: "Our market research suggests the target demographic really likes XYZ in the role, but they don't want him looking stupid, they want a bit of a storyline, something real, something that builds on I and II. They want a reason why III needed to be made."

Suit and sunglasses: "The reason why III needed to be made is that we needed to make some fucking money, so we can pay XYZ his thirty fucking million dollars, and keep the wolf from the door. Storyline? Same as I and II, with bigger hair, more tits and ass, freakier bad guys. Don't tell me about real. Don't tell me about building on I and II. It's a tired stale franchise with not much left to offer, and we need to milk it dry. I hit the spot; it was new, different. II was OK, it had its moments. III is a real dog. Formulaic. Rehash of a rehash. The hero died. Finis. Kaput. Now he's back, surprise surprise. How you tart that up is what we pay you for."

Black ponytail: "Understand. You got it. And we just know you'll appreciate what we've come up with. Judo. Turning weakness into strength. Threat into opportunity. See, we acknowledge the issue. We don't hide, we don't run. We take it on the chin…"

Suit and sunglasses: "Yeah like, uh, 'son of godzilla returns to strike back harder part 49…"

Black ponytail (mirthless chuckle): "In the ballpark, but tighter, much tighter. We come right out and say it's been done before. We borrow the good vibes from I, we steal the past to shore up the future. So what if III can't stand on its own. So what if the plot sucks. It's all about context. Positioning…"

Suit and sunglasses: "I haven't got all day…"

Black ponytail: "A clear and simple proposition: "Everything has led to this!"

*"Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that's what you predict the agent will do." (Daniel Dennett, The Intentional Stance, p. 17)

mumbo (refresh/home)

my big TOE, my GUT

Everything that is, has been, will be and could be comprises a being I name "Everything That Is" (ETI). "Everything" includes everything: hard things, soft things, real things, unreal things, material things (such as rocks and trees and human beings), immaterial things (such as souls and thoughts and dreams and mathematical formulae), and everything in between.

ETI is the biggest gestalt of all. Jesus is part of ETI. Jehovah is part of ETI. Zeus is. Satan is. Ahura Mazda. Beelzebub. Gaia. Quetzalcoatl. All part of ETI. ETI encompasses everything for all time and all times: yesterday, today and tomorrow. ETI is in time and out of time. ETI is here, there, everywhere.

Because ETI encompasses all contexts, ETI is context-independent. Because ETI encompasses all values, ETI is values-free, ie does not represent or favour any particular value or set of values over any other. All attributes or qualities are present in ETI. Things that are conscious are part of ETI; consciousness is a quality of ETI. Things that work towards goals are part of ETI; working towards goals is a quality of ETI. Things that are alive are part of ETI; being alive is a quality of ETI. Things that are dead are part of ETI; being dead is a quality of ETI. ETI is alive and dead: a divine paradox.

The purpose and meaning of life is to help ETI to know, experience and understand all aspects of zirself. The purpose and meaning of my life is to help ETI know, understand and experience what it is like to be me. The purpose and meaning of your life is to help ETI know, experience and understand what it is like to be you. The purpose and meaning of ETI's life is to know, experience and understand every part of zerself, including you, me, the girl next door, and a funny shaped rock on the surface of Mars. We are all creators, in fact, we all help create ETI, each creating a particular part for which ze takes ownership and responsibility.

The nature of reality is as follows: ETI. If and when the universe came into being, ETI came into being. If and when the universe dies and vanishes to nothingness, ETI dies and vanishes to nothingness.

My Big TOE
My GUT

mumbo (refresh/home)

the game of the name is the name of the game

A name is not the same as that which carries the name. The name of the game is the game of the name. As Shakespeare expresses it in Romeo and Juliet, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

Confusion about the names and the things they name leads to much disagreement and hostility. "Zimbabwe" is a name, and so too is "Rhodesia". Thing referred to as "gods" have many names, including "Allah", "Jehovah", "Zeus" and many more. "Slavery" is a name; "unpaid servitude" is another.

The relationships and differences between names and the named has been extensively analysed by deconstructionists and structuralists including de Saussure. But while these analyses have been useful, they do not go far enough, and they create additional confusion that is only marginally less than the confusion they set out to dispel in the first place. Because there is a third element to the game of the name and the named. But before I tell you what it is, some pre-positioning is in order.

Language conceals as much if not more than it reveals, and the truths of language can not be proved without stepping outside of the language into a meta-system, ala Godel's incompleteness theorem. I cannot conclusively prove the truth of the word "lion", for instance, by means of other words because that would be a finite but unbounded journey through a thicket of synonyms and near-synonyms. To prove the truth of the word "lion" I must step outside of language. I could, for example, point to a picture of lion, and say the word "lion", repeatedly if need be. Or I could represent the ontology of "lion" by means of the leonine genome.

The point is I will try in this post to explain the problems of language by means of language. I will try in this post to describe the inadequacy of words by means of words. It's not going to be pretty. It's not going to be elegant. It's not going to be easy to read or understand.

OK, so here we go. We were talking about names and the named, signs, signifiers and the signified. And I said that the dichotomy is actually a trichotomy; the dyad is a triad. It's a dialectic comprising the thing, its qualities (or attributes), and its name.

The following hypothetical conversation between Moses and Zarathustra may help clarify what I mean. It's a conversation in three acts. The subject of the conversation is God, Godhood, Deity. Act 1 is about the thing (signified). Act 2 is about the qualities (signifiers) of the thing. Act 3 is about the name (sign) of the thing.

ACT 1 -- THE THING

Moses: "Are your people deists or atheists, believers or unbelievers?"

Zarathustra: "Deists, of course. How about yours?"

Moses: "Deists, naturally."

ACT 2 -- THE QUALITIES OF THE THING

Zarathustra: "So tell me more about how your people identify deity."

Moses: "OK. Here goes. We worship deity. Deity sets rules for us to live by. Deity is the uncreated creator. Deity created the world and everything in it in seven days. Deity is one. I don't know the word for deity in your language but in English the word for deity is God. Now it's your turn."

Zarathustra: "I don't agree with you or your people. You are right in some respects, wrong in others. We too worship deity and try and live by the rules set by deity. It's true that deity is the uncreated creator, and that deity created the world, but not in seven days. Rather, by means of six divine sparks, or emanations, we call the amesha spenta: Manah, Asha, Kshathra, Armaiti, Haurvatat, and Ameretat. Yes, it's true that my people believe deity is one, but I have an Greek friend who tells me his people believe deity is many. And I have an Indian friend who tells me her people believe deity is many-in-one. Yes, I too do not know the word for deity in your language but in English the word for deity is God. In the Avestan language, it is "Dadvāh"."

ACT 3 -- THE NAME OF THE THING

Moses: "Deity has many names, and no names. Sometimes, we use the name "Jehovah"."

Zarathustra: "The name of deity is "Ahura Mazda".

One of the points of the three-act conversation above is to show that Moses and Zarathustra believe that on the subject of deity they have some things in common and some differences. In fact both the differences and the commonalities are illusions.

When the respective sets of signifiers (qualities) are not identical, then people using different signs ("Jehovah", "Ahura Mazda") to point to the same things signified ("god", "deity") may end up in disagreement. But it would not be a substantive disagreement. It would be as lightweight, and as trivial a disagreement as that between a French-speaking person and an English-speaking person about whether it is correct to say "noir" or "black" in relation to the absence of light. The truth or otherwise in the statement "Jehovah is a wrathful god" does not preclude or in any way affect the truth or otherwise of the statement "Ahura Mazda is a forgiving god".

When the respective sets of signifiers are not identical, however, then there may be a fundamental difference. But it would still be absurd to have an argument about it. The difference arises from things that are different. Well duh! It would be as absurd as the argument between Jack and Jill when Jack says, "Most bananas are yellow" and Jill replies, "No, some apples are red."

For example, the Amesha Spenta in Zoroastrianism are not part of Judaism. The set of attributes of deity in Judaism is not the same set of attributes of deity in Zoroastrianism. There is no logical reason to go on a crusade because "A" is not "B". It's just plain dumb. It's misunderstanding, not disagreement. It's terminology, not ontology. It's language, not truth.

mumbo (refresh/home)

reality is as reality does

To understand the nature of reality, and to communicate the nature of reality to others requires context-independence. Context-free thinking is a pre-requisite to such understanding, and the use of context-free language is a pre-requisite to the effective expression of such understanding to others.

The lemma is continuous not discreet: the less context-dependence, the closer to the true nature of reality. Quantum physics is an approximation. Reality is foamy. Waves, not particles. Appearances to the contrary.

The challenge is to rigorously strip, scrub, abrade, scrape, remove all types and instances of context from cogitation and elucidation, so that the biggest, purest meaning emerges.

What types of context are there? The types are too numerous to list, but for the purposes of this post here are some examples: contexts of person, of culture, of mind, of identity, of family, of paradigm, of shared belief, of species-hood, of genus-hood, of domain-hood, of family-hood, and many more. How can I understand everything within the narrow context of my finite mind? How can I understand everything within the constrained context of a wholly materialistic culture? How can I embrace the All with arms as wide only as wide as my arms are wide? How can I explain deity in a language with no words for the thought that I wish to express here but clearly cannot without the words to do so?

The reason why god does not take a particular shape or form or context is that god is all shapes and forms and contexts.

mumbo (refresh/home)

entanglement writ large

Here's a cute little meme-game anyone can play: List the different sets of which you are a member. I am a member of these sets: Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Vertebrate, Biped, Human, Capitalist Wage Slave, Baby Boomer, Tenant, Anglo-Celtic, Pantheist, Everything That Is, Father, Son, Husband, Green-eyed, Sentient (I think), etc. My partner is a member of some sets in which I am a member, and is a member in some sets of which I am not a member. She is a member of the following sets: Human, Anglo-Celtic, Biped, Mother, Daughter, Brown-eyed, Animal, Earthling, etc.

As you know, the set of Earthlings contains brown-eyed as well as green-eyed members. The set of Bipeds contains men as well as women. A set contains all the attributes of all of its members.

Remember Venn Diagrams? You could say they are a neat way to illustrate nested gestalts which in turn are a neat way of thinking about the much-maligned and ill-used concept of the Great Chain of Being (scala naturæ). Ken Wilbur is one of the few thinkers I've encountered who understands the importance of the concept of nested gestalts, or overlapping sets, in relation to the nature of reality . Wilbur's term is "holon", which is great as it goes but doesn't go far enough, in my view.

I feel intuitively that nothing has only one attribute, but I can’t prove it, yet. The corollary is that everything is a member of multiple sets, and thereby partakes in one sense of all the attributes of all the members of all the other sets. For instance, I am a man, and a member of the set of men. My partner is a woman, and a member of the set of women. She and I are members of the set of everything that is, and so too is the gestalt, Everything That Is (was, will be, could be).

I am not a member of the set of women, and therefore do not partake directly in the attribute of being-a-woman. However, I am a member of many sets containing members which are men and members which are women. "Human beings" is one such set. "Living creatures" is another. "Things" is another. "The Universe" is another. "Material objects" is another. "Everything that is" is another. I am part of that which has woman-ness as a part. I share in woman-ness.

Entanglement, a term from quantum physics, describes a state in which items or objects are so closely related (entangled with each other) that changing an attribute in one causes an instantaneous corresponding change in the other or other objects that are entangled, irrespective of the spatial distance between the objects. It's not controversial to say that everything is member of the set, Everything. But taking it one step further, I venture to say that everything is entangled with everything and partakes in one sense or another of all the attributes of all the members of the set, Everything. As the Buddhist said to the hotdog vendor, Make me one with everything!"

Gestalts. Lots of 'em. They're everywhere. Gestalts of knowledge, of biology, of chemistry, of physics, of species, of families (their members), nations (their citizens), material things, immaterial things, colours, qualities, and yes, even qualia. Gestalts. They're here. They're there. They're everywhere. They're nested. And they're showing at a cinema near you. Human beings have an amazing ability to identify and create gestalts. Some people call it a problem, "the binding problem", but what a great problem to have: the ability to bind things together into an integrated whole; the ability to create experience; the ability to live, to be alive.

Is this important? Why, yes, if you believe understanding the purpose of life and the nature of reality is important. The synergy of synergies, the overlaps that embrace difference and tame the beast of separateness.

It's late, and I'm getting tired, so we'll come back to this another time. But yes, it is very, very important. Trust me, I'm not a doctor!

mumbo (refresh/home)