Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

The Concept Line™

17 Nov

Whereas Aristotle and other logicians defined specific words we will work with concepts. To give a quick recap of what is required to be logical.

The first step is simple, but usually overlooked.

Before you can talk about anything you must first define your terms. All of them. But not just to yourself. You have to reach an agreement with whomever you are in the discussion with. This is not always easy.

People think they know what they are talking about.

They think they know what a car is.

Then they discover that the dictionary may define what a car is differently than they do. They are sometimes shocked to discover the law may use a different definition: One that may include one, two, or three-wheeled vehicles.

If you do not sit down with your discussion partner and agree on all the terms of what you are discussing you cannot be logical.

This happens a lot when people discuss deafness / Deaf.

A lot of people discuss deaf and deafness and are unaware there are people who belong to Deaf Culture. That is they have a shared language and have shared values that are different from the culture the person I am speaking with.

Some people find it impossible to believe that there are Deaf people, people who Identify as Deaf and use a Capital “D” to describe themselves.

No logical discussion can take place between us because there is no way we can agree on our terms. I am not going to change my position because I have had contact with Deaf people. The chances of their changing their opinion is slight. I have never had it happen.

Does the situation change when you use Map Thinking™?

Unfortunately no. In fact sometimes it is worse.

If the person has not been exposed to Map Thinking™ before the first thing you have to do is to convince them there is a concept of deaf / Deaf that extends from the most hearing enabled creature, which is not even a human being, to anyone or any thing that cannot hear. Including a rock.

To many people, including the most erudite this approach defies all sense of reason.

People who are inured to the logical approach, “Either you are deaf or you are not deaf”, cannot fully participate in a Mapological™ discussion.

The creature with the best hearing, that I know of as of this writing, is an owl. The thing with the least hearing is a rock, as in “stone cold deaf”. Which is an expression I have heard.

If you had the best human hearing in the world and you were an owl you would be deaf compared to other owls.

Yet sound is a vibration that transmits through air, water, and solid material. A rock has the ability to recognize sound. What it doesn’t have is a sensory system, nor a brain center, to interpret what it has received.

We are talking about a Concept Line™.

One Extreme ————————Concept———————————Other Extreme

Super Hearing ——————————————————————Inability to hear

Love ————————————Indifference —————————————Hate

In Mapping you develop a Concept Line™ by looking at whatever you are discussing and establishing its extremes. That usually means its opposites. So if you are discussing morality you place the most moral behavior at one extreme and describe/define it. Then you place the most immoral behavior at the other extreme and describe/define it.

Now you are able to discuss the concept.

Thus if you discuss running you will find as an antonym, walking.

But walking is not the opposite of running. Laying still is. Therefore standing still is at one extreme, running at the other and the concept is “self propelled motion”.

One of the most enjoyable things about The Concept Line™   is that you can narrow it down to its most specific possibility or expand it as far as your imagination allows. Thus allowing for both creativity and for Logical Analysis à la Aristotle.

One of the primary, and to some extremely subtle differences between a Mapological™ discussion of something and a Logical discussion of something is this:

Mapology™ recognizes we are discussing our concept of the thing under discussion — We are not discussing the thing itself — Even though we refer to it.

Logically it is assumed we are discussing the thing itself.

We use a concept line to define the limits of the concept we are discussing and the real world thing that generates this concept.

© 2013, All Rights Reserved.

How to Align the World by Drawing A Line In the World

10 Nov

In order to get a good handle on Aristotle’s Logic, and on Map Thinking™ as well, we need to turn to something often thought of as frivolous, or inexact, by “serious” thinkers.

 

ART.

 

If you are going to convey a piece of reality in a work of art you need to provide your perceiver with certain factors. These factors represent what the perceiver would encounter were they to have the “Real Thing” in front of them rather than the artistic representation.

 

The first thing to be considered in a work of art, especially if you are going to plan on doing one, is line. Where to place it and how “hard” to place it. Some forms of art, such as comic strips, are entirely composed of hard lines. At the other extreme you have Monet tossing dabs of paint on a canvas: You cannot distinguish a a line anywhere when looking at it up close. When you back off far enough your eye will supply the lines you need to distinguish what you are looking at.

 

In reality there are no lines.

 

Your mind supplies them all.

 

Just as happens when looking at the “Real Thing”.

 

Monet makes use of this mental trick in order to paint closer to the way reality is.

 

This may be harping, but “Our mind does not see reality the way it is”. Our mind sees reality in ways that enable the mind to process the information it receives more efficiently.

 

A Map Thinker ™ is always aware of this. When a Map Thinker™ uses Logic they are aware they are using a simplistic form of reasoning that is useful.

 

“Pure Thought” in the traditional Aristotelean Logical sense is Simplistic thought.

 

Does not mean Traditional Aristotelean Logic is not useful.

 

Logic is so useful that it does not matter what I say there will always be people who will believe Map Thinking™ is stupid and that Traditional Aristotlean Logic is a higher form or reasoning.

 

What Traditional Aristotelean Logic does is describe reality in simplistic, bite sized pieces.

 

Higher forms of reasoning.

 

People think Mathematics is a higher form or reasoning.

 

When I was in school the teachers taught that Einstein used “Higher Mathematics” to arrive at The General Theory of Relativity.

 

Wrong.

 

Einstein came up with his genius ideas, all of them, while day dreaming. He used mathematics to describe what he saw while day dreaming and predict what would prove his fantasies to be truth rather than fiction. The fact is that Imagination, as proven by Einstein and others, is The Highest Form of Reasoning.

 

Imagination allows us to boldly draw lines where they have never been drawn before.

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

How to Aristotle

3 Nov

How to use the simplistic tools of Aristotelean logic to do real thinking.

 

There are two ways of spelling Aristotelean. The other is Aristotelian. I chose “lean” because I think of Aristotelean logic as being “lean”. Getting to the meat and leaving all the fat behind. If you cut too lean you cut right to the bone and leave all the meat behind as well.

 

To do this I am going to tackle a subject where there is no good answer — Only questions that are not even interesting enough to explore on their own — But will be explored for other reasons.

 

Ready?

 

The medium who claims to be able to read auras.

 

How do we go about a Mapological examination of the subject?

 

The best way is to start out with  — Can you guess? Aristotelelean questions separating what can be true from what can be explored.

 

Either Madam Aura Reader is telling the truth or she is lying.

 

If she is lying then she is a fake and nothing more is to be explored here.

 

So let us say she is telling the truth: Then: The Question, using A <-^- > P becomes “What is she telling the truth about?”

 

Either Madam Aura Reader sees Auras or she does not.

 

Just because you and I do not see Auras does not mean Auras in some form are not there.

Just because she sees them does not mean they are there.

 

She could just as easily be smelling something about people and seeing Auras.

 

So, giving her all the benefit of the doubt here, we are going to say she perceives something she experiences as Auras.

 

The next question is, “Are her pronouncements of the meanings of these things correct?” Are they testable? Are they con man jargon?

 

Now let us look at P -^-> FAR ( please note that time and triggers are not important here and are not included in the argument)

 

In the ^ we need to include influences, such as ridicule, which would cause her to keep quiet about her vision — And inducements such as monetary gain from people who will pay her money to tell them things that she concludes.

 

Because of the criticism many people who could see Auras (If anyone can) would never mention their “gift”.

Because there is a lucrative market for people who claim to be able to see Auras there will be charlatans who will brave the criticism for the cash.

 

A Map Thinker will be aware of all this and more.

A Map Thinker will reserve judgment about the possibility of someone reading Auras until such time as the skill can be proved or disproved scientifically. Because of the physical and psychological quirks of <-^-> this is unlikely.

A Map Thinker, even were Madam Aura Reader to be proven to have the skill, would still keep their money in their pocket until the usefulness of her pronouncements were also scientifically proven. This is an even less likely event than proving a specific individual has the skill to begin with.

 

Thus you can use Aristotlean Logic to lead you to reasonable conclusions by pointing out dead ends in thought.

To some people this reasonable line of thinking is much less emotionally satisfying than, “If you can’t prove it, it isn’t true.” School of thought.

So be it. To each his own. There is room in the world for people who believe my way of thinking is trash. So long as they don’t want to come over to my house for sunday Bar B Que and try to convert me.

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

The Law of the Included Middle

11 Aug

Aristotle is NOT an idiot!

The Law of the Excluded Middle impeded science for hundreds of years and still impedes science.

Even those studies that are not normally thought of as science.

Such as economics.

As I pointed out in the law of contradiction, although not directly, everything is connected. All anything is is a different batch of a set of common ingredients to produce a recipe of creation.

Most of the interesting things happen in the middle.

First lets look at Aristotle:

Either (A or Not A)

A thing either exists or does not exist.

Every statement is ether true or false.

Logically this may be true.

Mapologically nothing exists quite as it is perceived and nothing exists until it is perceived. Until then it is simply potential.

Thus Neither (A nor Not A)

Truth is transitory and even that is worthless unless it has use. To be useful it must be grounded.

Example:

The Big Dipper is a constellation in the sky.

This is true.

But to be of any value two things must happen.

The person must know that the Big Dipper indicates north.

The Big Dipper must be visible.

Both conditions above must exist when you need them.

Perhaps when you are lost.

One of the difficulties many people have with my system of thought is that a lie can be seen as more useful, and therefore more desirable, than the truth.

Example:

A desperate killer is headed toward a theater. If he gets there and people are present he would have hostages. If you walk out on stage and explain the situation, answer questions, etc. He will be there.

On the other hand telling everyone there is a fire and to get away might be a superior alternative.

Lets take a look at the middle.

Let me give you a quick lesson in economics. It is applicable in many, perhaps most, situations. If you are making decisions it works. If you are trying to get your kids, or your employees to do a good job, it works. If you are trying to understand political issues it works.

Picture a teeter totter.

Got that?

Somewhere in the middle is the balance point where rewards and punishments exactly balance. If it is taking out the garbage there is a specific point where the bother of taking it out exactly balances the reward of having somewhere to put the garbage.

Okay, so your teenager is the one who is assigned the bother of taking out the kitchen garbage.

But the teenager never suffers the inconvenience of not having anyplace to put the potato peelings while cooking dinner. It is quite possible the teenager cannot even fathom the necessity of taking out the kitchen garbage.

This becomes a useful map of the family dynamics.

The solution is to either make the chores more pertinent to what the teenager is doing, or alter what the teenager is doing to make the chores more pertinent.

Perhaps the teenager should be the one peeling the potatoes.

Most people think economics has to do with the stock market.

Economics is simple. It is the science of the carrot and the stick. When the reward for doing something is worth the time and resources required to do it you have equilibrium. The reward may not be money. It might be self-respect. The resources might not be time or money. It could be self respect. When the teeter totter tips one way or the other then more people will either respond by avoiding the cost or by obtaining the reward. The further the tip the more people will respond to it.

Economics resides in the middle.

Without the included middle economics cannot be explored in any way, manner, shape, or form.

This is true of science and knowledge in general.

Aristotelean logic leads to dead ends, prison cells of the mind, and locks the thinker in them in the name of truth. Once there creativity stops, exploration stops, and real thinking stops.

Once a person who has found the one real truth they become a “believer” in that truth. There is no reason to look further. In fact looking further can seem blasphemous — Even though religion is not involved.

Aristotle is a case in point. A lot of philosophers have disagreed with Aristotle. Yet when I was in school the teachers idolized Aristotle. When I said I preferred Socrates I felt as though I were dealing with Sunday School talking God rather than a Parochial School talking philosophy. The difference being that Aristotle was the Holy One and Socrates the Questioner was a Satanic force.

When I said “Socrates died for my Questions” I was told that I was too young to discuss philosophy. There would be plenty of time for that when I went to college.

Like that was ever going to happen.

But wait a minute. Lets take a closer look at Aristotle himself.

When Aristotle wrote about the Virtues what did he espouse?

Balance and Moderation.

In other words when Aristotle tackled a real subject he did what any sensible person would do: He went right to the middle: He did not exclude it.

I wish I had known this when I was still in school. It would have changed my disagreements with teachers considerably. The outcome I do not know. But I am curious. After I left school I was able to find in libraries and read things about Aristotle that was not available in school.

All I found as a child was the Three Laws of Thought and the Syllogism.

At the time I had serious problems with them but had no argument against them except Socrates. The teachers were no help because their interests lay in “either – or” thinking by the students. Either you are a good student or a bad student. I was a bad student, therefore I needed to shape up or be punished.

I rejected the concept that I was a “bad” student.

Which meant they had to be bad teachers.

Nowadays, as a Map Thinker™ I would realize, at least intellectually, that the scholastic situation is such that it promotes conformity over education.

Somewhere after the sixth grade I wrote my first treatise on Philosophy. It was called Quizology and I wish I still had a copy. It was a study of questions. Most, if not all, of Quizology is embodied in Map Thinking™. I did not take care of it because I accepted the premise one of my teachers gave me, “No one will ever care what an ignorant Halfbreed has to say.”

The sad conclusion is that most people who claim to be logical use the most simplistic “Either – Or” tools available to them and ignore, or are unable to comprehend, the complexity of truly logical thought.

Oddly there is a definite parallel here with a certain type of Biblically ignorant person who claims to be a Christian but has no concept of what Christ said or did according to the new testament.

There is a rule here, I believe. Any belief system will attract a significant number of people who use the most simplified version of it and ignore the intricacies.

So far I have not tackled one thing; How does one find the middle?

That, it turns out is the easy part. You use Aristotle’s laws of thought. The simplest either / or mentality.

Without realizing what she was doing, my mother taught me Map Thinking™ when I was a small child. When someone would ask me, “Are you a good boy?” The pressure on the child is to say, “Yes.” Because either you are a good boy or you are a bad boy.

Most parents either let the child answer and beam with pride as the poor child is programmed, not so much to “goodness” — but programmed into this simplistic model of Aristotelean logic. Either / or. If the child hesitates the parent will often answer for them, “He is a very good boy (girl)”. Never thinking they are modeling not just the child’s behavior, which it probably doesn’t, but they are modeling the child’s methodology of thinking.

Not my mother.

“Tell him you are just a little boy, honey.” Which I would dutifully repeat.

What did I take away?

Somehow in my psyche was ingrained. I wasn’t good. I wasn’t bad. There is no either / or. I was just another little boy doing little boy things in little boy ways.

I still remember the odd looks on the faces of the adults who could not understand what had happened to a simple, culturally acceptable question that was normally asked of little children.

Scientists have studied some of the ways we humans reach false conclusions. Pretty much they have reached the conclusion our minds are wired in ways that produce certain fallacies of thought. What the scientists studying this phenomena don’t seem to have taken into consideration is that children are culturally and scholastically indoctrinated in these ways of thought.

And it doesn’t have to be that way.

So let us look at the Law of the Excluded Middle from a Map Thinker’s™ Point of View.

Either (A or not A)

Becomes:

A+ <- An ->A

Where A+ is one extreme. 

Where A- is the other extreme.

and An is all possible degrees in between.

 

© 2013, All Rights Reserved

The law of Non-Contradiction.

27 Jul

The law of Non-Contradiction.

 

Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no statement is both true and false.

 

Let us start with the easy one.

 

To a Map Thinker™ truth is virtually nonexistent. Those truths that do exist are ephemeral. This state of being existed at this specific time at this specific place. The most enduring truths are relationships and they are complete abstractions.

For example Pi.

Unfortunately the exact truth of Pi can never be known to the final digit and if it were it would be useless knowledge.

 

As Steven Hawking points out: In mathematics it is often the case where two different, even opposite, models can explain the same phenomena. Which one you use is a matter of choice or convenience. One of his sentences I love is that all P-branes are created equal.

Truth is not an issue.

Usefulness is.

To a Map Thinker the simplest solution that yields a useful result is the best solution.

 

Now on to: Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

 

Aristotle expressed this as A(A and not A).

 

Lets examine this a bit. In poor Aristotle’s defense, ( I do pick on him a LOT) he had no way of guessing our formula for A: An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n -> Q = I <- Pn . Science of the time, while more advanced than many people believe, was not what it is today.

What he was looking at as A was Q = I.

In simple words he saw the forest and thought it was the thing itself. He did not see the trees that made it up. Sort of the opposite of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

In complexer terms he saw the qualities expressed by(RsiRpi )n and thought this I(dentity) was in fact the thing itself.

 

And yes, I do know “proper grammar” does not include “complexer”. Someday I will write a “Map Thinker’s Guide to Creative Grammar™” Just because I can.

 

R -> Q = I <- P

 

R = Ripn

 

 

Lets take a closer look at R.

 

R = (RsiRpi )n means that A (Tree for example) is both the sum of its parts and the proportion of those parts. Thus to reiterate what was said before: It is possible to hold a rock in one hand and a glass of sea water in the other that both contain exactly the same ingredients. The only difference being the proportions of those ingredients.

 

But just like a stew can contain salt or not contain salt, or contain oregano or not contain oregano and still be identifiable as stew, so can sea water and a rock can contain or not contain different ingredients and still be identifiable as both a rock and sea water.

 

Tiny differences in the DNA of trees tells a scientist which tree was involved in the crime.

 

Some scientists tell us an interesting possibility about emus.

 

It seems that birds and reptiles are virtually the same creatures. Every feathered friend that exists is a potential scaly monster from bygone eras — If you knew how to flip the right switch.

Therefore an Emu is a potential tiny dinosaur of the same size and shape.

 

Is that true?

It remains to be proven.

 

Gene splicing, cloning, DNA fiddling… this could get confusing.

 

So the law of non-contradiction that Aristotle was so fond of is in reality a pleasant fiction that bears no relationship to the world of reality — Only the world of appearance.

 

Once we replace A = A with  we are forced to replace  NOT (A and not A) with A = An and Rn where An equals slight variations in A (possibly over time) Rn. When Rip as perceived by Aristotle had a large enough difference he saw A as something entirely different.

Let us say A = grass.

If grass is given the right nutrients it will provide your lawn with a richer, more bountiful color to show off your skill and your house.

Thus A = An.

Very slight variations in the same grass over time and environment (a hefty word meaning place / space).

Your neighbor has a different breed of grass.

A = Aªn.

Where A is A but shows a wide variation. Enough to be a separate variety.

A = (RsiRpi )

Where A = any potential state of A both known and unknown.

An example of this could be instead of feeding the lawn a diet that produces a more robust color the homeowner instead forgets to water the grass and it becomes dry and brown and eventually dies off.

Or it could be the neighbor’s cow eats it and it changes state completely.

 

Aristotle never considered time, space, or process in any of his laws. With modern knowledge of how the world works we cannot ignore them. Any change, even the slightest, in time, space, or process, will have an effect on A no matter what A is.

 

A is only A at a specific place, during a specific time, while no process is happening.

Thus A is ONLY A while you are pointing at it.

As soon as you have turned your back on it it has changed.

 

The grass, A, is changing at some microscopic level even as you point at it.

Thus An -> I <-P.

 

I will name the Perceiver George.

This comes from an enjoyable Fantasy novel titled “The Dragon and the George”  by Gordon R. Dickson.

It is a reply to The Ultimate Prisoner Riddle. ( I will get into the Ultimate Prisoner Riddle and its social aspects another time.) The oldest of these I know of is Sinbad. But Sinbad the Sailor and Sinbad the wealthy and Sinbad the Pauper are all the same. And this is very transparent.

Jim Eckert on the other hand enters a world of magic as the Dragon Gorbash. And is forced into another Point of View entirely.

George is a suitable name for our Perceiver.

We, as does George, must face constant change in our Point of View.

 

An -> I <-P.

Where there is a slight difference, even a profoundly noticeable difference such as color change or growing too tall, George is able to maintain continuity. He can say, “My grass sure looks better after I added that new ingredient to it. But it is growing faster so I got to cut it this weekend.”

 

 

Thus George can think about, and talk about, the grass in front of his house that he calls a lawn as though it existed in Aristotle’s simplistic universe.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Remember a basic principle of Map Thinking:

Always use the simplest map that serves the purpose.

 

Just because George knows, or should know, that at some level A -> I <- P does not mean that he has to use it every time he draws a breath.

 

Here is another basic principle of Map Thinking.

 

The human mind, in order to function, simplifies everything. There is no way the human mind can encompass all the complexities of the universe. Even if it could it would have to focus on one aspect at a time in order to function as a human being.

 

In art you are taught the basic shapes. Circle, square, rectangles, triangles, ovals, — None of these shapes exist in nature.

They are mental simplifications the mind uses to deal with all the complex information presented by a confusing universe.

Does not matter.

If you learn to draw, and learn to see, basic shapes, you will always be able to produce a picture.

No tree or bush that ever existed was ever exactly ball-shaped or exactly triangular-shaped — But the mind will process them as such. Even houses built by humans do not form exact squares and rectangles, but the mind sees them as such.

 

Thus the law of non-contradiction must be replaced with,

A ≠ -> I <- P

A does not equal the Identity it projects to the Perceiver.

 

A is both A and Not A.

 

At one and the same time.

 

You should notice that nowhere in here have I directly discussed particle physics or quantum physics / mechanics. Both are implied. It would be hard for me to discuss reason or science without some references. But everything I have discussed has been on the macro level.

Aristotle could have seen it.

Anyone since Aristotle could have seen it.

Some did.

Those who did were quickly drowned out by those who worshipped Aristotle as the Thinker of all Thinkers. Just last week I met a man whose basic attitude is, “Aristotle said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

 

Had Aristotle not been so simplistic, or had his adherents not been so fanatical, Quantum Physics would not be such a shock to the average person. Because the activity at the Macro level is NOT that different from that at the Micro level — If you take the time to look.

 

 

 

(C) 2013, All Rights Reserved

 

The Seventh Law of Identity

21 Jul

A = A

A = DRip/Tn -^->DQ/Tn  = I (EE)/Tn <-^- P/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/Tt

Should be complicated enough. However something obvious is missing. The answer to the question, “What is P?” It is easy to develop the superior position and assume that “P” refers to the human perceiver. 

But it isn’t true.

P is any Perceiver.

A cow perceives grass. The grass, though totally passive in this situation has produced a change in action and desire in the cow. Because of this the cow eats the grass. This produces further change in the cow and the grass responds by re-growing itself if its root system is strong enough.

Oooops. Lets look closer at the grass:

In the November American Journal of Botany, Susan Dudley, a McMaster University biologist says common flowering plants devote less energy to growing roots when surrounded by family. In the presence of unrelated plants, individuals grow their roots as fast, and as competitively as possible. 

So now at a grassroots level you have mutual perception. 

In other words P -^-> I <-^- P.

Or at this level A -^-> I <-^- A. 

In a way we have come full circle. 

The only difference between A and P is DRip/T.

If we say that P = (DRip/T) where P has the Greatest Variety of Action, and A = (DRip/T) where A has the the Least Variety of Action then we can establish three states of A <-^-> P interaction.

A <-^-> A 

Where both A’s have limited awareness and interaction with each other. Plants recognizing related members and then competing less for resources would be an A <-^-> A situation.

A <-^-> P

A cow eating a blade grass, or choosing to eat another blade of grass. A scientist looking through a microscope. A doctor choosing an antibacterial agent. 

There is a story wherein a student asks the Zen Master, “What if you are walking in the woods and meet a tiger?”

“Perhaps,” answers the Master, “The tiger is not hungry.”

Thus even though the Human is the more adaptable and has a greater ability to reason; in this case the tiger is in control, it is the P and the human is the A. 

Understanding the relationship A <-^-> P it should never have surprised anyone that bacteria, and obvious A was able to adapt and virtually outsmart the Human P with all of its antibacterials. 

Then we have P <-^-> P where both DRip/T’s have high, and fairly equal Variety of FAR/Tt

If this strikes anyone as familiar let me point out that we have just arrived at a form of Cybernetics. In fact we are looking at a simplified rule of The Law of Requisite Variety. That which has the greatest Variety of action in any given system controls the system. 

Which in turn leads us into Systems Theory wherein we can see:

A (or P) = DRip/Tn -^-> DQ/Tn  = I (EE)/Tn <-^- A (or P) = DRip/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/Tt

As a system. 

We can “Black Box” any part or parts of the formula and concentrate on the particular part we are interested in examining. I personally feel the most interesting parts are the “bumps in the road” as I call them, “^”. 

Thus P1 -^-> I <-^- P2 applied to Schrödinger’s cat means that you are also in a state of questionable existence until the cat sees you. 

We can expand and contract any system for as many A’s and P’s as we want to include or exclude from the system. 

Once you actually examine A and the meanings of A all of this is obvious. Once you get past the A = A and face reality as it is these things are obvious, even necessary. 

I hope you have enjoyed, and profit from, my presentation.

To me the subject is fascinating.

It is unlikely I will get this complex again. 

Doesn’t matter. There are a lot more implications to Map Thinking™.

 

 

(C) 2013 All Rights Reserved

 

 

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

Laws of Aristotle and Ladders of Wittgenstein

6 Apr

For those of you who like to read good fiction try The HomeWrecker Series ™

Off to a Conclusion: How you get there. (Part Two)

Aristotle created three laws of reason.

The First law: A is A!

It is called the law of identity.

A thing is a thing is a thing, and not any other thing. A man is a man and not a monkey or a fish.

Of course Aristotle did not know there is only a one per cent difference in the genetic makeup of a man and a chimp. I’ve been told the percentage might be somewhat less in my personal case.

The Second Law: A is Not Not A.

It is called the Law of Non-Contradiction.

A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect. A thing can not be both true and false at the same time.

Of course Aristotle was born 2,300 years ago. Quantum physics is a pinch over a hundred years old. Only a babe on the first rung of Schild’s ladder

At least he indicated AT THE SAME TIME and IN THE SAME RESPECT.

If you want to read a really good presentation of Aristotle’s Three Laws of Thought. James Carter Dawkins does an excellent job in his blog.

Please allow me to share with you the stupidest statement I have ever heard in my life:

Wherever you are at: That is exactly where you are.

And now please allow me to share with you the wisest statement I have ever heard in my life:

Wherever you are at: That is exactly where you are.

By definition I am a Christian. I adhere to certain teachings of Jesus.

By definition I am not a Christian. I do not accept the concept of an omnipotent God. Nor do I believe in the divinity of Jesus.

By definition I am a Hindu because I believe Jesus may be a reincarnation of Krishna, which is believed by some Hindus.

By definition I am not a Hindu because I am not convinced the Hindu pantheon exists.

By definition I am a Buddhist because I believe he is the wisest wise man I have ever read about.

By definition I am not a Buddhist because I do not base my life on his teachings.

By definition I am a Hindu because I believe Buddha may be a reincarnation of Krishna.

Somehow I am a hopper full of is and not is all at the same time. Yet I am a very simple man — and not one iota of misgivings that I might have an identity crises.

The kick here is — And this is an essential truth to Aristotle’s Logic and an essential Non-Truth to Wittenstien’s modeling.

The most ridiculous of the three laws is of course:

Either A or —A

The law of the excluded middle.

A thing is either true or not true. There is no middle ground. The color wheel does not exist for Aristotle. The colors either are red or orange or yellow or green or blue or indigo or violet or black or white or grey. The graduations of color in the color wheel are not allowed.

Nor, I suppose are Collodictyon. This single cell creature can best be described by what it is not. It is not an animal, plant, parasite, fungus or algae.

Let us contrast this with Wittgenstein.

“What can be said, can be said with clarity: What can’t be said, must remain unsaid … The language defines the limit, beyond that limit is nonsense.”

Okay, you know and I know I am going to disagree with Wittgenstein too — But he is on to something.

I’ll get into that in the next blog.

 

© 2013 All rights reserved.

 

ultimatemindsettoday

A great WordPress.com site

Don Charisma

because anything is possible with Charisma

War By Other Means

Politics & Philosophy

this is... The Neighborhood

the Story within the Story

stillness of heart

MUSINGS : CRITICISM : HISTORY : PASSION

The Guilty Preacher Man

abandoned illustrations

matchtall

A tall women amazon model WordPress.com sit

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 - The Fun Top Ten Blog

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

ajrogersphilosophy

A fine WordPress.com site

Thoughts

What ever I'm thinking