Fire
Tripod

Rostra
Rostra

BACK TO ESSAY POTPOURRI



Order out of Chaos



“God does not throw dice.”

Albert Einstein



And in the beginning, there was self; and self became perception. *

I once said that order is an undefined term 1 . Order is something that comes to us; but is not originally present. Order needs a viewpoint to exist in; or better yet, order defines viewpoint. Order makes intelligibility possible, yet resides in it. Order is the structure behind the intelligible. We already know what order is; yet we cannot define it. Why?

We are born outside of order. But order gradually comes to us out of the original chaos the Gestalt 2 presents to us. Order is “connectivity”; it is the opposite of chaos (disconnectiveness). It is “relatedness”. In a way it is the generality of generalities; or, what makes logic possible. But even further it is what makes even logic itself probable. So we define it as being undefined; yet we know exactly what it is intuitively. Order is what connects a cause and its effect. It can be measured, and its existence known, but we can never pin it down precisely. Like infinity, it can be approached, yet never attained. It is the underpinnings of understanding; yet, it itself is never understood. It lies in that nowhere land between the intuitive and the known. It is pure structure without meaning attached; yet, within it lies meaning. It is a backdrop for knowing, or the stage upon which the understanding plays out the drama of life. It gives us a way to begin eternally abstracting ourselves from the blank slate of existence. It brings forth abstraction by making distinctions possible. But it is separate from self. Self uses order to create itself. Self grows out of order; yet it preexists order.

Self makes order known; and order makes the self known. Self grows from the recursive growth of itself and the production of order. The first distinction is the beginning of order, and the beginning of the sequence of time. Order is the YIN, which nurtures the YANG of self. As the substance of order grows, the self recursively acts on itself, to further build itself and the order that allows further growth. The self is that recursive process which acts on, and creates order, so both grow into the process and form of awareness. Self is process, and order the form upon which it builds.

Process continues as long as it has order to work on. One perpetuates the other. In the beginning there is nothing and everything. The indistinguishable is at the same time both. The indistinguishable exists, and does not exist; for it is before logic; it is before order; it is even before self.

What we call control is the beginning of order. Within the primordial chaos is what we may term random change within the single mass of the will-Gestalt. The will is then a part of the Gestalt. The willed repetition of change is the first order – the first connectivitysequence.

Order brings forth the original primary distinction – the distinction between will and everything else. It is the beginning of knowledge. Control leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to more control. There must be this primary distinction for the universe to emerge. This split signals the first cause and the first effect; the birth of the will. What lies behind will is this growth of order. The will is that which is aware; through more control the will becomes more aware, and creates more order. The response of the world to further attempted control consolidates the primary distinction, and distinguishes the self from a willful world. Will is seen as that which can be controlled, and that which can’t.

This new order, or set of connections allows the birth of Dasein, in Heideggar’s terminology. Now interaction can elicit changes in the internal self, as opposed to the external world. Control can be used to improve the internal self. And order can allow further distinctions to isolate primitive objects, like the parents. Behaviors and their results can be paired and purposes formed through which the self becomes aware that it is the only viewpoint. But dependency is also confirmed by the strength of certain overpowering outside controls exhibited by outside objects like the parents.

Thus order is not only an internal or mental structure, but it also produces the structure of the external universe. Since we know the universe through the sensations clothed in the order of the perceptual apparatus; we can also create science as a seeming external symbolic representation of this internal order. The tools are:

Identity, the replacement of one object, or its parts, by another through the use of concept and symbol;

Concept (or class), which changes existents into groups of identical objects through the abstraction of sets of data or attributes, and relations that define an object concept (class);

Symbol, which represents an object or relation by a token and allows replacement through identity;

Logic, which symbolically represents the order of the mind so that deductive postulation theories can be created through inductive probing of the objects perception creates by using their respective concepts. Here induction is a probing of specific objects, and the relational and causal effects they produce, as examples of specific concepts. Deduction uses the symbolic representations of the mind’s order to produce a predictive scheme that always produces similar results in the manipulation of concepts; and defines truth and falsity through the symbolic testing of identity.

What is an object? 3
Individuals are objects; there is more here in this word “individual” than first meets the eye. Individual can be further translated as: “unique individual”. An object is a unique individual of a class of similar objects. This, more or less says: “these objects are the same, yet different”. All humans are the same as far as they are members of the class human; yet each individual human is different from another, and no one human can exactly replace another through an identity relationship; they are unique in toto. On the other hand, if they are considered only as human members of the class human, they are identical, as defined in accordance with the definition of human. So they are identical as far as identity is the identity of the class human. We may say that objects have something called “resolution”; a resolution is conferred on objects by the class they belong to. Resolution is the sum total of all the attributes and relations a class defines; and something else. Each attribute has a value: e.g.: say, hair color = black, eye color = brown, teeth number (adult) = 32, etc. But the values must be within a certain range. Also for relations, which are behavior characteristics; they must also function within a certain scope of functional values. For instance a human does not fly (at least, on its own). But there is more than this, and that is precisely what is so hard to talk about. For example, we find a “missing link”; it has all the attributes and relations of a human, but some are outside the values “for humans”. Is this missing link human? Some say it is; others say it isn’t. Here we see how open ended a class or concept is. What is real is the individual (unique) members of classes; the concept is purely an interpretation defined by every interpreter. Also we see that identity does not exist in the world, per se. Identity is a fabrication used to create objects of the various concepts. Even in this sense (using it in concept formation), it is only an approximation, set within what I call a fuzzy resolution; a resolution blurred at both ends.

So this tells us that objects are a creation, which are based on a part of a real perceptual Gestalt. That “part” I call an existent; a pre-interpreted proto-object, from which real objects are fashioned. What is “real” about it is that it is sharable through becoming an object. It has the property of wholeness; or, that it is distinguishable by the will in some way or ways.

Identity, The Secret of the Universe
Here I will lay bare the secret of the Universe; in essence what divides mind from matter. I have mentioned it before, above, and in my statement of the Philosophy of the GOOD.

Why is the world of mind so different from the world of matter? It is very simple; within the world of mind there is identity.

I described identity above; but what is identity? If there was not mind, we could never know identity. Identity does not exist in the world of matter. Everything within the world of matter is unique. This is what I stated before to be the Law of Uniqueness, the primary Law of the mortal universe 4 .

All of mathematics and the concept of number itself rely on this one concept: identity 5 . From it springs the concept of equivalence or what in geometry we call congruence. It has to do with duplication. We can never achieve true duplication in the mortal world. I should amend this, to be more precise, by saying: We can never achieve true duplication in the mortal world, except through approximation. All order in the mortal world is brought about through this single concept, yet it, per se, does not exist there. What I have just said means that order is totally of the mind, not of the world, or what I have called the continuum 6 .

We see in the above statements that we have already entered an infinite regress. We cannot even use language, of any kind without taking for granted identity. Even symbol or sign demands a plural, and thus assumes identity. Every time we create a plural reference we have assumed identity.

But now I will go one step further, and say that even in the mind identity is not an “is” but a “can be”. In other words, identity does not originally exist; but is created. The concept does not exist, even in the mind; it is “put together”, defined. So we come to a very astonishing fact: identity, even the mental version of it, is only an approximation, not a certainty. Further, identity is never finished, just as the concept itself is never finished, but is open ended. This important fact comes from the even more important fact that viewpoint, or “self”, can never be known. It is the “missing knowledge” of life.

This brings us to a conclusion at odds with the view of the ancients. Their view was that mind was a type of perfection; but we have shown this not to be the case; mind too, is flawed, or mortal. This hints at another assumption taken for granted; that assumption is that perfection lies somewhere in the realm of identity. But this is not right either; it is not identity, but unity. The term “Perfect unity” is fallacious; unity like identity is flawed, if there is more than one thing referenced. We create unity, just as we create identity. It exists within the bounds we create for it to exist in, just as identity exists only within the bounds we create for it to exist in. Here we have come back to the idea of resolution. These are similar to Newton’s fluxions, as Bishop Berkeley called them “the ghosts of departed quantities”. Resolution is the fuzziness in logic; the part that abstraction left behind. Resolution is the difference between perfection and imperfection.

Unity implies separation. Unity, per se, is really perfection, for there is nothing else to be distinguished. That is why mortality, which can only exist in separation into distinguishable parts, can never be perfect. In essence, the beginning of perception rules out perfection, and the mortality of the world becomes reality. Life is always an estimate, or approximation.

Modes of thought
Existents are pre-thought. They are distinguishable, and become the objects which thought uses, within the resolution the mind gives to the concept that owns them. Thought is further symbolic manipulation of concepts to produce facts or propositions based on existents. Thoughts exist through time by bringing the past, illustrated in facts, within the eternal present of the mind.

What is before the veil of mind is the existent, not the object. What is considered in thought is the object, an expansion of the existent, which contains the mere form of the existent as its basis from which the object is abstracted. The object is sharable through symbolism; the existent is not sharable; it is unique and approachable only by the self.

Self and its store of experience through life, together with the present perception is what we call Dasein.

The thought is what deals with fact in a world already abstracted from the “real” world of existents. What science hypothesizes on the basis of these facts, gives rise to predictions of the behavior of the objects it has abstracted out of the existents the mind originally confronts. Can there be any doubt that these predictions will be in conformity with the definition that these objects were originally given? In other words, the creation of the objects really determine what the subsequent hypotheses will be. Do they really describe the world’s continuum, or the objects the mind has created to represent them? The nature of light is an example. It can be an object called a wave, or an object called a particle; or according to modern quantum mechanics a little of both. But what this really shows is that it is a mental construct that has not been correctly pinned down as yet, because we do not yet know enough to “objectize” it into a definite object as we conceive of the term. By substituting probability theory as a type of causation, we can deal with it, yet not know exactly what object it is.

So thought can go beyond objects, by being able to predict overall phenomenal behavior. So we can show that God does throw dice after all. But we always knew that, because a human exhibits free will – but that is another subject we will examine elsewhere.






FOOTNOTES

To return to note's origin click the footnote number at left



* PLEASE NOTE: In this essay I use Bolded font for emphasis, and Italic font for less emphasis; both together for the most emphasis.


1 Similarly to what Heideggar said about being in his book “Being and Time”. We know order, but can only describe it by its effects, and the results of the thought processes it produces. Here we point out where it lives, and what it makes possible, rather than giving it a definition.


2 I use Gestalt as equivalent to what I term the “present perception”; it embodies the ‘fuzzy’ four dimensional perceptual stage, caught in the ‘present’ time frame (see the Terminology section of the Philosophy of the GOOD).


3 Objects are the members of either concepts or classes. Both of these terms are the general definition for objects, either physical (material objects) or objects of thought. So objects are either physical or mental objects. The mental objects are also usually said to be concepts, even though the class within which they reside are also called the “concept” (there is an ambiguity here in the way the language is used). The cookie cutter pattern is a good way to think of the class or concept, since they are the mold for all the objects they determine. This sort of brings out how truly unreal these objects really are, since we come to see that they are not ever fully determined since the existent upon which they are built is really a unique thing, and the class that defines our way of finding an identity for it (and also forming a plural of it) is really only an approximation, since it is based on something unique, and never fully determinable.

So the sequence is:
(We use -> as meaning: “leads to”)

Existent (unique)
->
Concept or Class (a General definition which is an approximation of the existent)
->
Object (a unique, approximation that can form an identical match with another object)

Also note that although above we make a distinction between objects that originate in either thought (concepts) or as material objects, ALL objects are really things that exist only in the mind; and they can all be thought of as thoughts.

So what are "concepts", or the pure objects of thought, that have no existent as a prototype?

For instance, say, the concept “responsibility”; it is an object of pure thought, yet it cannot be finished in its definition as an object, just as the material objects like a car or a human cannot be finished. As I have shown in the essay, “Responsible, a Troublesome Word”, it isn’t even an “is” but a “should be”, since it is interpreted differently according to the situation at hand, and who is doing the interpreting.

So these concepts are pure thought, yet they are very personally defined. I believe this is due to the fact that they are ideas (concepts) that have a close connection to the self, which cannot be communicated. So again we are confronted with the imperfection, or approximation of the mental world, that the ancients thought was a perfect world.


4 The mortal world, or universe is the world of sensations. Sensations are the bare elements whose combinations make up the existents which we perceive.


5 The concept of variable is one of a place holder for similar objects. Although the value varies (within the scope of the kind of object it holds), the type of object it holds doesn't. The concept or class itself cannot be substituted for an object of that type, within the variable holder (Russel's Paradox).


6 What scientists would call the "factual" part of the mortal world.



BACK TO ESSAY POTPOURRI


Rostra
Rostra

Originally Published:

September 19, 2010

Revised:

July 3, 2014