Archive | June, 2013

The Fourth Law of Identity

29 Jun

TIME

The Great Contradiction

Agent of Change

Anchor of Continuity

 

A = AT <- PT

 

Once Time is added we have to conclude that A ≠ A.

That is Yesterday’s A is not Today’s A and Tomorrow’s A will be a different A still.

A0 is the lawn that was planted. It was not yet a lawn.

A1 is the lawn that I cut yesterday.

A2 is the lawn I have today.

 

Before we move on lets look at A0. 

Why start with 0 instead of using 1, the first example of A?

Because 0 has a value. The value is the unrealized potential. 

 Take one molecule of gold. It is gold. It has all the properties of gold. 

But it has no use. Indeed a hundred are of no use. How many molecules does it take to be useful? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million?

Let us say the smallest useful amount of gold that can be readily identified is one flake. That is a lot of molecules. That amount can be counted as one. The smallest useful amount of zero gold is the amount it is profitable to extract into useful amounts of one. Gold is in lots of places. There is gold in the oceans. But it would cost more to extract it than it would be worth. 

Oil is the same. In California a capped well might have a million gallons of zero oil in it. Someday the situation will probably change.

One fertile egg is one zero chicken or one-third of a zero omelette. 

One chicken is 365.25 zero eggs a year.

One grass seed is one zero grass.

You might want to consider this type of zero a “special case zero” but somewhere in the future when I get into Complexity Theory and the Magic of Emergence (Novelty be thy name-o) the idea of Zero equaling a potential of unknown outcome may seem normal, and the concept of Zero having a value may seem a lot less special. In a way it isn’t that special now. Think of adding 0.2 and 0.4. We now have 0.6. All three have value, but none of the three is 1 yet. They are still all three 0. 

In the mean time let us consider Zero to be potential rated from Zero potential to absolute potential when it becomes One.

And believe it or not, to me that makes perfect sense.

 

 

To get back to the subject:

A = A0…AFor the life of A.

Where each gradient from 0… is a discreet change that is detectable in some way over time. It may only be detectable using technology, but it still counts.

 

Yet we know that A is still A. 

 

At the same time we know that A is not A yet, it is only potential A.

We know a grass seed is both not grass and is grass at the same time.

 

Once we factor in Time we must recognize the Difference in A from Time Zero through Time for each section of Time measured. 

But:

Once we factor in Time we must recognize the Continuity of A as the same A that experienced the Difference. 

 

Yesterday’s Child could not walk.

Today’s Child took its first step.

Tomorrow’s Child will run.

 

Thus A, and our knowledge of A, is in fact Anchored in Continuity. 

We know nothing about anything until we know its past state, its present state, and are able to have expectations about its future state.

 

Thus: 

A = RD/T = I <- P

 

Where the Difference in the Recipe of A over periods of Time becomes the Identity of A as understood by P. 

 

In other words A is not only not A over time, but the changes undergone by A becomes the Identity of A as Perceived and Processed by the Perceiver. 

 

Thus allowing Aristotle to believe that A = A in spite of so much evidence to the contrary. 

 

Thus Aristotle is not an idiot. 

He simply did not take Socrates advice to heart. 

The unexamined A is not worth looking at. 

 

It also explains why stories, anecdotes, and Maps, are so important to human thinking. Without Anchoring to something, Time, Place, Concept, there is no continuity, and therefore no real understanding. 

It explains why people with complete maps that are well anchored, which compares to Deep Structure in linguistics, are more stable mentally and emotionally than people with Fragmented, disjointed, unanchored maps. 

 

Noam Chomsky, and others, have tried to account for how the two sentences:

Jack kissed Jill

And 

Jill was kissed by Jack

 

Can both be interpreted by the human mind as roughly equivalent. 

(They are not equivalent and do not mean the same thing, but that is a secret to be revealed later.)

For the minute we will simple accept that both sentences describe the same event. 

The question is “How does the Human Mind know this?”

The answer depends on Anchors.

If you do not know what a “kiss” is you have no anchors. 

To have a kiss explained to you is to be able to attain some understanding of kiss-ness, but it is free floating knowledge, unanchored, forgettable, and unexperienced.

To see people kissing is a visual anchor.

To completely anchor the concept of kissing a person has to kiss and be kissed. Once it is anchored a map, a model, a physical, mental, emotional, reference has been developed and is retainable and recallable.

If a person has only experienced one type of kissing, say that of parent to child, then the map / model is incomplete and the person’s kissing vocabulary is undeveloped. They may not fully understand what happened when Jack kissed, Jill was kissed. 

When the words are heard, or seen, a map is recalled, a model is compared too, and experience replayed, a video clip is viewed — Any or all of these things happen as fast as the human mind can operate. So fast the Perceiver is probably not aware of it. It does not matter how it is said, this same — NON WORD reference is made. 

It is important to realize that WORDS are not referenced.

Once we get past this Aristotelean Block™ to reason, everything makes — Not just sense — But simple, easy to understand sense.

 

The idea that Surface Structure Words refer to Deep Structure Words makes no sense.

Words refer to events as experienced by the Perceiver. 

A = AT/D <- P

 

Words describe the Qualities that make up the Identity as understood by the Perceiver. 

 

W -> A = Qn <- P

Words describe A which are the Qualities received, understood, perceived, and processed by the Perceiver.

 

When the situation is reversed:

P -> Qn (A) <- W

The Perceiver reports the (Noticed and Understood) Qualities of (A) using Words. 

 

In all cases the physical, perceived, experience, of P is referred too.

 

Deep Structure is the Experience of a thing or event by the Perceiver. 

 

Thus: 

Jack kissed Jill

Jill was kissed by Jack

Jack and Jill were kissing

 

Are all experienced by the Perceiver as similar (but not exact) experiences.

 

The fourth law of Identity can be expressed as:

A = EE/T <- P

Where A equals the (past) Experience and (future) Expectations of A over Time as Understood (Perceived and Processed) by P, the Perceiver. 

 

When A EE/T <- P in some significant way, then P -> A.

 

In English: When  A does not live up to future expectations in some significant way then the Person tends to deny that A is actually A even though A is still A in all other respects. 

 

Thus a stunted rose may no longer be a rose to a prize-winning gardener. A homosexual child may no longer be a son, or a pregnant child a daughter, to a zealot father. Or a thousand other rejections both petty and traumatic for any number of reasoning “From Expectations”.

 

I have stated before and no doubt will state again.

There is no way to separate the study of Language or the study of Philosophy from either Science or Psychology.

Experience is often not as remembered. 

Expectations are often unreasonable and demanding.

Reactions when Expectations are not met are often unreasonable. 

There is a distinct proportion here:

The more unreasonable the expectation the more unreasonable the reaction. 

Oddly this often becomes a cycle. The same unreasonable expectations happen again and again and the same unreasonable reactions happen afterward. 

I give Christmas as an example. 

Post Christmas Depression. 

You would think after one or two years of disappointment the Perceiver would change their Expectations. 

But that does not happen.

 

Back to A.

Our expanded formula:

A = DRip/T ->DQn/T  = I (EE) <- P

Where A is the Recipe composed of Ingredients and Proportions  that change D with Time. This Recipe produces perceivable Qualities that also change D with Time. This is the Identity which includes Past Experiences and Future Expectations that is Perceived and Processed by P. 

 

The Past Experiences and Future Expectations are so incorporated in the human mind that Aristotle, and future philosophers, were able to ignore them completely and insist that A = A rather than the what A really is.

A, any given A, is a process. 

The Qualities that process expresses produces an Identity. 

The Perception itself is a process. 

The Perceiver, in turn, processes the information. 

 

Reality itself is a Process.

Perception of Reality is a Process.

 

A <- P

 

A is not A. 

A does not exist.

A only exists when and how it is Perceived and Processed by P.

 

 

(C) 2013, All Rights Reserved

 

Advertisements

The Third Law of Identity

22 Jun

The First and Second Laws of Identity primarily concern those things that are most concrete. Things you can see, taste, touch, smell, and hear.

Assuming you have all five of those senses.

You may not.

Even if you do those senses may be atypical and you not even realize it. I know of a person who went to the eye doctor because their vision had deteriorated. The doctor was confused, the person had 20/20 vision.

Going through older medical records from prior eye doctors revealed when the person was young they had 15/15 vision.

20/20 seemed poor by comparison.

 

The Third Law of Identity deals with A as Action.

Verbs.

At some point we quit just identifying things and begin to notice those things are doing something. It is the first step in discovering that Reality is a series of Interacting Relationships, not just static objects that sit around waiting for you to observe them.

 

To say A = A when speaking of eating makes no sense.

 

AT -> Ch <- P

 

When A is an Action over Time it Produces a Change that can be Observed by P.

 

The Change can be Place or Composition or even something else.

 

When eating the primary change is in composition. The apple has changed position, but it has changed composition even more.

When running the primary change is in position. However the composition of the runner has changed slightly as well. The runner is sweating, breathing deeply, possibly panting, etc.

Even sitting still and meditating produces change even though it is difficult to observe without instruments.

 

AT -> D = (Dc Dt Dp) = Dctp <- P

 

An Action over Time produces Change which amounts to a Difference in Composition, Time, and / or Place.

 

Okay. Lets go back to the First Law of Identity:

 

An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n = Ripn ->  Qn = I  <- Pn

 

You will notice that as you add T Time the recipe will change. The degree of change may or may not be perceptible to The Perceiver. 

 Thus all A’s A0..A act as verbs no matter how static they appear to be to any given Perceiver. In fact in order to understand A we have to revise the formula to include T Time.

 

An =  Ripn ->  Qn = I  <- Pn

 

AnTn = RipnTn  -> QnTn =  ITn <- PTn

 

In simple english the Recipe of Anything changes over Time altering the Qualities received by the Perceiver ( Who has also changed over Time). Whether the receiver Perceives the changes or not is a different matter. 

 

We can expand, contract, or manipulate these formulas in any what that is useful. For now the simplest expression of A = A for a modern Map Thinker is:

 

AT <- PT

 

Any thing over Time that is received by the Perceiver over Time recognizing that both have changed to some degree over any given interval. 

 

The Second Law of Identity

15 Jun

We start with the simplest form of the First Law of Identity as applied to objects in the real world, such as a dog, a tree, a river.

A <- P

Then:

AnT -> (A1…A) = C <- P

Where Significant Variations of A over T(ime) becomes a Group Category. A Concept of A’ness as viewed by the Perceiver.

Or:

Once enough examples of A have been observed A’ness becomes a  mental concept so that the next time the Perceiver encounters the next A they will perceive it as an A: That is it belongs to the Category A. Even though there is a wide difference between the New A and its predecessors.

In simpler language:

Once you have seen a Chihuahua, a Cocker Spaniel, and a German Shepherd,  you are pretty certain to be able to recognize a Great Dane as a dog even though you have never seen one before.

Like all things dealing with the mind this does not work perfectly.

If you have seen enough sheep to recognize a sheep you might think a goat is a sheep until you learn differently.

Also a thing can belong to more than one grouping. Thus a whale legitimately belongs with fish as things that swim in the sea and also as a mammal that nurses the young.

Words play a part in this.

Let us go back again to childhood to see how the next problem of Identity begins. I will call it the first step in Map Fragmentation™. It is normally done by a person with a minimal understanding of Reason who considers themselves a “logical” person swinging Aristotle’s Hammer™.

I can remember looking out the window of a bus and pointing at a big red truck with all the bright lights and loud noise. “Look mommy. A truck.”

My mother explained, “Honey, that kind of a truck is called a Fire Engine.”

A simple enough exchange, you would think.

Until I heard the father of a friend of mine tell his son, “That is not a truck. That is a Fire Engine.”

When I tried to explain it was a truck, just a different kind of truck, the father instructed me that I should inform my mother to get married so I could be raised like a real man instead of like a whimpering sissy.

What I took away from that was pure happiness that I did not have a father around who would act like that, and a profound fear my mother might someday get married and I would have to deal with someone like him. What I get out of it today is that what adults think they are teaching children and what the children are learning have nothing to do with each other.

What I also gathered was that to be a “Real Man” in The United States in 1950 meant to have an unwavering opinion and NEVER show any uncertainty, hesitation, or doubt.

What happened is the father used Aristotle’s Hammer™ to fragment his son’s map.

A (Fire Engine) is A (Fire Engine). Therefore it is not a truck.

A (Fire Engine) is not both A (Fire Engine) and Not A (Fire Engine). Therefore it cannot be both a Fire Engine and a Truck.

A (Fire Engine) is either A (Fire Engine) or Not A (Fire Engine). Therefore if it is a Fire Engine it is not a truck.

This type of reasoning not only fragments a person’s map, which is the way they navigate through reality, it does serious damage to their mental and emotional states as well. It makes it difficult for the person to make the connections necessary to maintain mental and emotional wellness.

The child’s ability to group things into a sensible Map or Model of the Universe has been seriously ruptured with Pseudo-Logic.

It may not matter if this only happens once, or twice, but you can bet the father will have a lot more subjects to apply Aristotle’s Hammer™ to. It would help if the schools somehow countered the process of Map Fragmentation™ but unfortunately they have entire text books devoted to Map Fragmentation™ rather than Map Creation.

For example small children are given books that help them identify cars, trucks, and airplanes. Cats, dogs, cows, etc. It is only later they are taught that cars and trucks are vehicles, and they may never be told that an airplane is also a vehicle. Somewhere, when they are old enough they will be told that cats, dogs, cows, and OMG even humans, are mammals.

I have been given several reasons why children are taught this way, each one (to me) appearing stupider than the last.

What it amounts to is that instead of giving the children connected maps of reality; the maps they would build if left alone; are fragmented in the name of Education using Aristotle’s Hammer™.

Most people…Eventually… Construct completed maps subconsciously on their own.

However certain institutions, such as the military, us an Aristotle’s Hammer to a power Thor would envy.

Some navy people get apoplectic if you call one of their ships a “boat”. Sorry, bud. A ship is just a big boat. A canoe is a tiny boat. In the real world, in spite of Aristotle, there is no distinct demarcation that makes a ship something separate from all other floating devices.

An army man once told me of a harrowing experience when he referred to his rifle as a “gun”.

He was forced to stand for what seemed like hours

First shaking his rifle while shouting, “This is my weapon.”

Then shaking his crotch while shouting, “This is my gun.”

Shaking his rifle again while shouting, “This is for fighting.”

Shaking his crotch again while shouting, “This is for fun.”

A penis is not a gun. A rifle is a gun. A gun is a weapon.

But then disassociation is supposed to be helpful in the military. They are, or were, taught to think of the person they were shooting at as a target, not a living breathing human being.

However:

Sooner or later the soldier comes face to face with the fact the target they shot was a living breathing human being.

That is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder served raw.

The Second Law of Identity is the conceptual recognition of groups of things in addition to recognition of individual things. The way an intelligence, any intelligence, recognizes the next example of a thing as belonging to a known group of recognized things.

The Second Law of Identity is necessary because the recognition of groups of things, and the connections between groups of things, is just as necessary to the thinking process as recognition of an individual thing.

To carry it one step further:

AnT + A+nT + ∞Tn -> EnT <- P

Where AnT is any group of things, say dogs and A+nT is any other group of things, say cats, and the two of them become an Extended group called pets.

We arrive at something very much like a Venn Diagram where cats and dogs are pets while mountain lions and wolves are wild creatures.

Except that wolves can be made into pets and lions cannot except in Texas.

Time to move on to the 3rd Law of Identity.

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

First Law of Identity

8 Jun

The Map Thinker’s ™ first law of identity.

When the Identity consists of those things that are objects in the real universe (As opposed to Concepts). When the Identity consists of those things that are concepts, such as freedom, God, government, goals. When Identity consists of things that are beliefs, such as a belief there are true psychics and those who believe all psychics are frauds. When the Identity consists of an event, such as the birth of a baby, or Christmas, or 911.

Identity is that which the Perceiver has learned to identify as distinct.

For the minute we will concentrate on those things that are “real” objects in The Universe.

Let us look at what this means.

And by the way, when you are looking at it, the math like looking junk confuses some people, makes it clearer to others. If it confuses you, just skip it. Just read the words. The math like looking stuff is only there to make me seem more important anyway.

The words alone explain it all.

A = I <- Pn.

Where A is that which is perceived.

Where I is the identity of A as Perceived and Processed by P.

Where <- is the perception as received (observation or non observation through various senses) or, you may say, is understood, by P.

Where P is the Perceiver who Perceives and Processes the Qualities of A that equal Identity.

Where n denotes the specific Perceiver.

Aristotle in his egotism, assumed every intelligent person would be a copy of — You guessed it — Him. He never took into consideration that someone else might legitimately differ with his view. He assumed anyone who differed was less intelligent — Or even less human than he was. Thus he assumed that A = A is the truth and that any intelligent human being would experience it the same. Thus you either agreed with him or joined the ranks of subhumans; barbarians, women, Blind, and Deaf.

Einstein was not an egotist, he simply did not take differences in human perception into consideration when he evolved the Theory of Relativity. To do so would have added a note of complexity that would not have helped his ideas in any way. Still he postulated an observer who saw accurately, processed the information accurately, and would report accurately. Naturally accuracy would duplicate Aristotle’s perceptions.

Something which seldom happens.

It is time we got off our high horse. Look the horse in the eye. That horse thinks. We may think things the horse does not, possibly because there is no use in the horse thinking of them. In this the horse may be superior to us. As humans we think many things there is no use in our thinking. In fact many things humans think are counter survival. Unlike the horse.

Aristotle assumed Truth exists in a permanent state.

There is no evidence that anything, let alone truth exists in other than a transitory state.

Aristotle further assumed that a human being using their mind alone could understand this absolute truth.

That assumption is unfounded and has a very low probability factor. The evidence is that it is extremely difficult for anyone to understand completely even the most obvious truths.

The tree is full of green leaves.

But do we all experience the same green from the same tree? Even those of us who are not color blind do not see the exact same green as others. I personally see one green from one eye, another green from the other eye, and a different green when I look with both eyes. I experience three shades of tree green. Should I ask, “Which is the ‘true green?’ or do I simply accept the fact that I can only experience that which I can experience?

Most of us would be horrified nowadays to be told that Deaf People and Color Blind people were less intelligent, perhaps less human than those who saw colors ‘correctly’ or heard ‘correctly’.

Yet when anyone attempts to apply Aristotelian logic to the modern world they are applying just those assumptions. They are imbedded in Aristotelian logic. They are embodied in the “Law of Thought” A = A.

The “truth” as near as it exists, is that each person who Perceives  ( P1,2,3…n) will experience any given reality in a slightly different way.

If an absolute truth did exist in any manner, shape, or form, we would not be able to experience it in any way save through our imperfect human senses.

Once we did experience this absolute, perfect truth, each person would have to process it.

An example of this might be an automobile accident. Let us assume that all observers are of equal perceptual ability. They are capable of exactly the same initial perception.

P1 might notice the action of the cars involved but not be aware of the colors of the cars.

P2 might notice the colors of the cars but be unclear on the action.

P3 might not notice the action or the colors of the cars. They might notice the color of the drivers.

Why the difference?

Processing.

Each processed the exact same information differently.

So Pn for each n processes different information differently.

One person sees Caviar and salivates.

Another is revolted by eating fish bait.

So now let us take an objective look, as objectively as we can, at two disparate A’s.

A half pound of ocean water and A half pound of rock.

No two things could be more different.

Or could they?

Ocean water is called salt water because it has so much salt in it. It has so much that it is economically sound to extract the salt from it.

Rocks have enough water in them that colonizing the moon is more apt to be viable because it can be extracted from them.

Oceans have organic matter in them. Probably because fish poop in it.

Rocks have organic matter in them. Probably because the neighbor’s dog pooped on it.

Ocean water has minerals in it.

So do rocks.

It is quite possible to hold a solid rock in one hand and a glass of ocean water in the other and that both contain the exact same ingredients.

Just not in the same proportions.

It is important to grasp this.

There is no difference between the rock and the glass of ocean water except the proportions of the ingredients.

An = Rn <- Pn

Where A is that proportion of difference which allows the Perceiver to perceive it as having a separate identity. R is the recipe.  If you find it difficult to think of A, say a rock, as a Recipe, read on, the concept is truly very natural.

This proportion of difference might be very slight.

One percent difference in DNA can mean the difference between one discernible distinct species and another discernible distinct species.

My mother was in the middle of baking a meatloaf when a bunch of panicked people raced into the kitchen yelling the problem. There were a lot more people coming to dinner than expected and there was no time to change the menu and cook more, or new food.

My mother, undaunted, said, “Hand me some broth. I’ll turn the meatloaf into  a huge stew.”

And she did.

She had an innate knowledge that the difference between many things is more in the perception than in the reality.

But she did not stop there.

Spaghetti  cooks quick. So she scooped out some future meatballs from the meatloaf.

In less than twenty minutes the meatloaf that was meant to feed six became stew with spaghetti and meatballs able to feed twenty.

Slight differences in composition and ingredients made huge differences in the final product.

This is equally true of humans.

The difference that makes us individuals is one thing and one thing only — How we choose to react to situations.

Let us apply this to our little equation:

A = R

Where A is the Thing, R is the Recipe.

Let us look closely at R.

R = (RsiRpi)

Where Rsi is the sum of the ingredients.

Here we need to keep in mind that stew is still identifiable as stew whether it contains salt or not or whether it contains oregano or not. It is identifiable as the same stew even though you add peppers to spice it up.

Where Rpi is the proportions of those ingredients.

Remember my mother’s stew and the meatloaf had exactly the same ingredients. The spaghetti and meatballs only had one new ingredient.

Where A equals the Sum of its Ingredients factored by the Proportion of those Ingredients. This creates an aggregate identity that can be perceived by The Perceiver. Which is then processed, categorized, and possibly reported to others via language.

The R is simply the Recipe.

In other words all of reality consists of recipes that consist of the same ingredients recombined over and over again.

Are we finished?

No.

The last produces more confusing clarification: We need to dig just a little deeper into identity.

A = R = (RsiRpi ) -> Qn

Or, written in English.

R is the Sum and Proportion of its ingredients expressed as distinct Qualities. These qualities are perceived as hard, soft, rough, smooth, heavy, light, tasty, smelly, etc.

Therefore:

A = R = (RsiRpi ) -> Qn = I <- Pn

A is a Recipe that equals the Sum and Proportions of its ingredients and is expressed as various Qualities that present a distinct Identity that can be Received by each Perceiver in a different way.

A tree is a bunch of bored quarks who got together for a little party. They banded together into little Ménage à trois to produce electrons, neutrons, etc. That banded together into atoms and molecules. That produced all kinds of parts of the tree. Those parts somehow all came together and produced the tree.

Wow!

Aristotle’s universe was very drab and boring compared to the real thing.

Just remember:

A  ≠ A

An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n -> Q = I <- Pn   

So (RsiRpi) can easily be reduced to Ripn

Looking at this alleged formula brings one to the same philosophical conclusion as arrived at by particle physics.

To wit:

A thing does not really exist except as a potential possibility until we perceive it.

But it gets worse.

We, who perceive it are, to varying degrees, deaf and blind and otherwise limited in our perceptions.

So we are not able to fully perceive that which our perceptions have brought into existence.

We get to that later.

Right now lets just shorten our equation to Rn -> I <- Pn.

A -> I <- P

All the complexities that go into the creation of A produces an Identity that is Received by a Perceiver.

R = A <- P

Or even:

A <- P

In English: A person, place, idea, or thing as perceived by the individual in question.

This is a perfectly fine simplified equation to use instead of:

An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n = Ripn ->  Qn = I  <- Pn

So long as we remember that it is a simplified, shortened form. 

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

 

Aristotle was an Idiot: Part 3

1 Jun

Aristotle was an idiot (Part 3)

 

We now come to the most idiotic of Aristotle’s three laws.

 

The law of the excluded middle.

 

Either (A or not A)

 

Either something exists or it does not exist.

 

Either a statement is true or it is false.

 

The tree exists in one sense. It does not exactly exist in several other senses. It is an emergent phenomena that we don’t have a clue how to explain. It is a novel emergence that is an example of the genus tree.

A river exists in a sense. But it has less existence in another some ways than the tree. The tree is a process that is slow. Its sap is a sluggish thing hidden from our eyes. Its other processes are also hidden, including the way it changes sunlight into nourishment. A river is a quicker process. It changes before our eyes so quickly that the water we were looking at the beginning of this paragraph is long gone now and other water from somewhere upstream has taken its place.

So the river neither exists nor does it not exist. It is an emergent phenomena that we are able to perceive and name.

Even the name is fluid.

Many of the rivers in California are creeks in Missouri.

Size matters.

Who is looking matters.

 

The biggest problem with the excluded middle is that it promotes ignorance and unreasonable thinking.

 

It promotes ignorant concepts such as, “You are either with us or against us.”

It is the kind of thinking that promotes bigotry, hatred, and superiority thinking — Either you think like Aristotle thinks or you are an ignorant jackass.

Either you give the answer that is in the back of the book or you get an “F”.

 

Excluding the middle, if a person actually did that, would be to take our society back at least 2,000 years.

 

ALL of science takes place in the middle.

 

Let me give you a quick course in economics using Map Thinking™.

Take a picture of a teeter totter.

When the benefits on one end equal the cost in resources on the other the teeter totter will balance. When this has happened the most efficient decision has been reached.

Note that economics is a great way of reaching decisions for future actions in all kinds of situations.

And it is far less complicated than logic to learn.

 

And where is this decision for optimal action made?

In the middle.

The center of the teeter totter where pros and cons balance each other.

 

The Bell Curve has so many uses in so many ways I cannot begin to even enumerate them all.

And where is the Bell Curve?

In the middle.

 

If you want to add Complexity Theory to the mix then you add the Power Law, a sort of Deformed Bell Curve with a serious slope, or slide on one side.

And where is this found?

In the middle.

 

All of the progress in science has been made either at the edges of our knowledge or in the excluded middle.

 

Steven Hawking makes a massive statement in “The Universe in a Nutshell”:

 

“The question, ‘Do extra dimensions really exist?’ has no meaning. All one can ask is whether mathematical models with extra dimensions provide a good description of the universe.”

 

And that, my friend, is Map Thinking™ in a nutshell. Not just about mathematics, or about extra dimensions — But about everything.

 

The excluded middle, in effect, rejects all maps, models, graphs, pictures, and actions. All that is left is the words and the definitions you apply to them.

Conclusions from these, in logic, are called truth.

 

Let’s go back to Steven Hawking:

 

“I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions should be in agreement with observation.”

 

One thing that places Aristotle totally in the idiot category is that in other things — He stayed, and demanded others stay — Square in the middle.

 

In The Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle constantly harps on finding the middle way between two extremes. Choose bravery, which is the middle position between cowardice and foolhardiness. Choose politeness which is between rudeness and servility. One should be neither a glutton nor neglect oneself through self denial.

Unfortunately those who chose to follow his thinking were more idiotic than he and they chose to ignore his sensible ethics.

Thus if gluttony is bad his followers believe there is virtue in starving oneself. If greed is a sin then self denial is a virtue. If lust is wrong then virginity is the only virtue. And son on and so on.

 

In other words Aristotle was only half an idiot.

 

His followers were complete idiots.

 

Come to think of it, this could be said of most religions.

 

Map Thinking™  places reasoning where reasoning should be, between the extremes, where reality lies and where the action is. Not at the extremes, which are dead ends.

 

Map Thinking™ is by nature both empirical and positivist.

 

That is Map Thinking™ first looks to empirical evidence. From the empirical evidence maps, models, graphs, charts, etc are built. The maps are checked for usefulness. Not for accuracy.

 

In Map Thinking™ comprehension of relationships are considered of primary importance.

 

I hope you will take the adventure into Map Thinking™ with me starting with how this effects the “three laws of thought” as espoused by Aristotle.

 

 

 

ultimatemindsettoday

A great WordPress.com site

via GiantGag.com

Killing time just got a lot funnier !

Don Charisma

because anything is possible with Charisma

War By Other Means

Politics & Philosophy

The Neighborhood

society online's social conscious

stillness of heart

MUSINGS : CRITICISM : HISTORY : PASSION

The Guilty Preacher Man

abandoned illustrations

matchtall

A tall women amazon model WordPress.com sit

Gotta Find a Home

Conversations with Street People

Three Wise Guys

Best not to think about it

Mister G Kids

A daily comic about real stuff little kids say in school. By Matt Gajdoš

Ray Ferrer - Emotion on Canvas

** OFFICIAL Site of Artist Ray Ferrer **

The Judy-Jodie and Kelli Memorial Blog

A great WordPress.com site

A Financial Life Coach

Your Financial Life Coach

Storyshucker

A blog full of humorous and poignant observations.

Dysfunctional Literacy

Just because you CAN read Moby Dick doesn't mean you should.

Top 10 of Anything and Everything!!!

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More