Archive for August, 2008

About Morality and Ethics

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

Eyal Weizman wrote an article about the Isreali Army. To his surprise they are using the work of Deleuze and Christopher Alexander to define “Post-Modern” tactics. When you read the article you will see how clever the Army uses the insights of people who never had an idea that their insights should be used to kill and terrorize innocent people.

Somehow you Feel that it is Wrong that a “Killing-Machine” is using the theories that were developed to bring Harmony and Beauty (Christopher Alexander) to the world.

Ethics shows itself in two ways Norms and Values. The first part is about Morality. People have developed Rules to determine what is Good and what is Bad Behavior. Rules are prohibiting the Freedom to Act. Every time people override these rules because they have a different theory about Good and Bad or are Forced to Act in a certain Context. Most of the time We Act without Thinking.

There is no reason to subject all the actions we undertake to the criterion: Is it free or not? Freedom is only for certain acts. There are all sorts of acts that do not have to be confronted with the problems of freedom. They are done solely, one could say, to calm our disquietude: all our habitual and machinal acts. We will speak of freedom only when we pose the question of an act capable or not of filling the amplitude of the soul at a given moment” (Deleuze).

Values are part of the Emotions. They are “personal rules” that determine the behavior of humans. Most of the time the values are not known to the person that uses the “rules“. A person = “his values“. They show themselves when he (or she) is Acting.

When we observe a person for a long time or the person observes himself (introspection) the values show themselves. If the values show themselves the person develops a personal ethics, an inner voice, the conscience.

The fundamental question of ethics is not “What must I do?” (which is the question of morality) but rather “What can I do, what am I capable of doing (which is the proper question of an ethics without morality). Given my degree of power, what are my capabilities and capacities? How can I come into active possession of my power? How can I go to the limit of what I “can do“? (Daniel Smith).

The astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike” (Deleuze) .

People are driven by their Emotions AND they are capable to Control their Emotions. They control their Emotions when they apply Norms (Thinking, Morality) or when they use their Conscioussness.

The Primary Emotions, are those that we feel first, as a first response to a situation. If we are threatened, we feel fear or anger. When we hear of a death, we may feel sadness. They are un-Thinking responses that we have. The Primary Emotions are not controlled by our Thinking or our “Inner Voice”. The Primary Emotions are sometimes called Desires or Drives.

The System We Live In has created many situations where our Desires are activated. All the efforts of Marketing are directed at overriding the Consciouss. All the Efforts of Propaganda are used to motivate Soldiers to Kill out of Anger.

“Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational-it is not sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium and drift” (Deleuze).

The Personal Values are overridden when something or someone activates the Desires. Everybody is Able to Kill or Harm another Being if the Right Situation is Created.

Everything that helps me to preserve my existence I take to be Good and everything that goes against my existence or the I take to be Bad. What is good is what is useful, relative to my existence, and what is bad, is what is dangerous, relatively speaking, to my continued existence. My existence or the existence of my family or group is a major priority when I act. The problem arises when different groups are trying to exist in the same context.

Are people doing something Wrong when something is activating something they are not controlling? Are we Responsible for our Desires? I don’t think so.

When we look at the “causal chain” we can see that there are somewhere consciouss people (the “architects“) who have created and perfected “killing-machines” to secure the existence of their people (The Jews). They have used their rational abilities to find a reason why they are doing this. A reason might be to protect their family and their children. They fear (a primary emotion) something is going to happen. They develop technology, methods and scenario’s to prohibit “this” from happening. Again they are “deep within” activated by something they don’t control.

Are they doing something Wrong when something is activating something they are not controlling? The Causal Chain does not give an answer. Everywhere we find the Invisible Power of Desire. Underneath all reason lies delirium and drift. We are a Body and a Soul. In this World we have Live with the Body, the Perfect Desire-Machine.

Pushing to the utmost what one can do is the properly ethical task” (Deleuze).

All one must do is experiment with what is, to create the new. Are the architects of the Army doing their utmost best to prevent a conflict? Are they able to use their technology to make a better use of the available resources?

The principles of Alexander identify the character of Living Systems. The principles are not there to Kill but to make a Living. I am sure the military architects did not fully understand his books. Perhaps they can ask him to help.

LINKS

The 15 principles of Alexander to Create a Living System

DELEUZE AND THE QUESTION OF DESIRE: TOWARD AN IMMANENT THEORY OF ETHICS, Daniel W. Smith

About Total Madness

Monday, August 4th, 2008

I have never believed reason and the final implementation of reason, the Computer, would help mankind. Reason is a terrible trap. It compresses our reality to a single point in which we finally will vanish. 

The Reason We are Here is not reason but non-reason. We are here to fight reason until it finally disappears.

The weapon with which we have to fight reason is reason itself. If we understand the simple fractal pattern behind everything we are ready to experience the spectacular effects of the simple pattern.

When you look at my blog about the Limits of Reason you can see that the solution is easy to find.

The solution is to move to the level the computer and reason never can reach, the world beyond Point Ω of Chaitin into Total Madness. It is the place where the Creative Force creates unique patterns that nobody can explain. The only thing we can do is Experience them.

The step into the world beyond Ω is in essence a step into madness. We have to leave everything we know behind. We have to skip all our patterns.

There are many types of madness but the madness I am talking about is named schizophrenia or psychosis.

I have experienced Psychosis when I suddenly jumped into the Unknown two years ago. I did not know my state was named this way. I experienced the state and tried move out of it because it was killing me. It was killing me because I received too much information. My brain was unable to find a pattern and the effect was almost total madness.

Luckily I did not go to a psychiatrist and I also did not take any pills. I just started to use the Internet to find out what was happening to me. Finally I knew I was the “victim” of something the old scientists call “Kundalini Rising“. I was experiencing something the Old Scientists call Enlightment.

When you are moving into the state of Enlightment you know there is another world behind this world and you know this world is real. It exists but the majority of humans are not aware of this world.

When you have experienced this state you suddenly understand what other enlightened humans are trying to tell. You understand the Gnosis but you also understand certain Philosophers who are trying to grasp the Reality behind our Reality.

One of them is Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze worked together with the psychiatrist Félix Guattari. One of their “Inventions” is the Plane of Immanence.

A few citations:

Here, there are no longer any forms or developments of forms; nor are there subjects or the formation of subjects. There is no structure, any more than there is genesis.”

We will say of pure immanence that it is A LIFE, and nothing else” [...]

A life is the immanence of immanence, absolute immanence: it is complete power, complete bliss

There are only relations of movement and rest, speed and slowness between unformed elements, or at least between elements that are relatively unformed, molecules, and particles of all kinds. There are only haecceities, affects, subjectless individuations that constitute collective assemblages. [...] We call this plane, which knows only longitudes and latitudes, speeds and haecceities, the plane of consistency or composition (as opposed to a plan(e) of organization or development

Deleuze and Guattari are using very difficult language but what they are trying to grasp is the experience of Union that occurs when your kundalini is moving. Many other people that have experienced this state of pure love have tried to find all kinds of metaphors to explain something you cannot explain.

The first time in my life the state of Union took only 30 minutes because somebody was able to drag me out of it. I wanted to stay there for ever. The second state lasted more than a week and because I was alone nobody was able to help me. It was much stronger and it came with huge flashes of Insight.

What will come in the near future is total Madness. Many people are already moving inside to find a state to cope with the Madness. The Total Madness has many names. Terrence McKenna calls it Point Omega. Funny enough the state when we pass the Limits of Reason carries the same name.

What is the Reason We are Here

I think Leibniz was not far away from his statement that Our Universe is “the most simple in hypotheses and the most rich in phenomena“. There are just a few rules that determine the Game of Life. It does not take a long time to find these rules. We can spend our whole life to prove these simple rules are not there. In this case Reasoning detracts us from the real thing. 

If we want to move beyond Omega we have to stop Reasoning. At that time we are ready to Create and Experience the Unique Events of Life itself.

LINKS

About the Deleuze and Events

About Deleuze and Leibnitz

About Deleuze and Ethics

About Deleuze and Creation

About 2012 and Point Omega

What willl happen at Point Omega

 

About The Limits of Reason

Sunday, August 3rd, 2008

You can always find an infinite amount of equations that fits a finite set of points.

When the set of points changes the equation changes. This represents a major problem when you want to find a general pattern. The solution is to assume that the pattern behind the set of points has to be a Simple Equation (or a Simple Law).

A  theory has to be simpler than the data it explains, otherwise it does not explain anything.

To define Simplicity we have to define a tool that measures the simplicity of an equation. Mathematicians have tried to solve this problem in many different ways. The problem seamed unsolvable until computers and software-languages were invented.

A law of nature is a piece of software, a computer algorithm, and instead of trying to measure the complexity of a law via the size of an equation, we now consider the size of programs, the number of bits in the software that implements a theory.

If every theory is represented by a string of bits we are able to analyze what a computer (our “thinking mind”) is able to represent. The problem is transformed to the problem of representation. Behind this problem lies the problem of Compression.

Our Reality is represented by the simplest equation (the shortest (most compressed) binary set) that when it is expanded represents the most complex binary set that represents our reality.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

One of the conditions we have to add is the condition of “understand ability”. Perhaps the expression exists but we are unable to grasp the law. Leibniz calls this law the principle of sufficient reason.

Leibniz formulated this principle as follows: “Dieu a choisi celuy qui est… le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes” (God has chosen that which is the most simple in hypotheses and the most rich in phenomena)”. “Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier” (But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for random)”.

The interesting point in the statements of Leibniz is de term “irrégulier“. It is translated by the term “random“. This term can be interpreted in many ways. In the world of Statistics it means that a certain event is unpredictable. In algorithmic terms it means that we are unable to find a pattern behind the pattern we observe. A random pattern is an essential pattern. It cannot be compressed.

Science ends when we have found randomness and have reached the Limits of Reason.

Everybody has a Limit of Reason and this limit expands in time but for every mind that will be born there is an absolute limit of Reason. When we have reached this limit we will know there are still patterns to find but we will be unable to prove they are real patterns.

Gregory Chaitin
Gregory Chaitin

Gregory Chaitin is the expert of the Limits of Reason and he is highly influenced by Leibniz.

By running a program you can eventually discover that it halts, if it halts. When it halts you have found a theory. The problem is to decide when to give up on a program that does not halt.

A great many special cases can be solved, but Turing showed that a general solution is impossible. No algorithm, no mathematical theory, can ever tell us which programs will halt and which will not.

We are never certain that we have found a theory because when we wait a little longer (collect more facts) we find the final theory that explains what we want to explain (if we understand the theory).

We could use a computer to search for patterns (this happens already) but the computer presents an incomprehensible theory (this happens already) or it has to search a little longer. A computer could run “for ever” when there is enough energy but a human has a fixed lifetime. The halting problem shows that we will not know how long “for ever” is. We also will not have enough minds to analyze the output. The Halting problem is proved to be unsolvable.

Chaitin defined a constant Ω that shows our progress in reaching the Limit of Reason. It shows our progress to reach the Incomprehensible.

We still have a long way to go.

The Halting Problem cannot be solved because we (the Humans) are unable to define the Limits of Reason. Even the Brightest Minds will not be able to understand all the patterns that are available in Our Universe. Even Mechanical Devices programmed by the Brightest minds will not solve the Mystery. Somewhere we will make a Mistake.

The Mistake will start a new process of Inquiry and New Theories will be created that will always contain a Mistake. We will be Busy until Enternity to Create because we are not perfect. Only Perfect Solutions are Impossible.

I want to close this blog with a statement of Leibniz: ”Sans les mathématiques on ne pénètre point au fond de la philosophie. Sans la philosophie on ne pénètre point au fond des mathématiques. Sans les deux on ne pénètre au fond de rien”(Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy. Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics. Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything)”.

LINKS

George Chaitin about the Principle of Sufficient Reason

About  Geometry and Fractal Patterns

About Formal Languages and Mistakes 

About the Quest for the perfect language (A Talk of Chaitin about the book of Umberto Ecco)

Leibniz forgot to mention the role of the Artist

About Leibniz and Deleuze

About Turing Machines

About Leibniz and Deleuze

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

deleuzeGilles Deleuze was a French Philosopher who lived between 1925 and 1995. Deleuze’s main philosophical project concerns the relationship between Identity and Difference.

Until recently Difference was seen as a difference between two Identities. Deleuze attempts to reverse this situation, and to understand Difference-in-Itself. In his Quest for Difference Deleuze is highly inspired by Leibniz.

 Identities are constructs of many Differences that were Identies until Someone of Something United them. Our Reality is an Expanding Infinite Serie of Differences.

I found Deleuze on the Internet because I was searching for more information about Leibniz. Deleuze was an admirer of Leibniz and dedicated his last book, The Fold (Le Pli) to him. One of the major projects of Leibniz was the Analysis of Infinite Series of Differences and Differential Equations. It is not strange that Deleuze was a fan of Leibniz. Leibniz created the Concept and Deleuze was the Artist who started to Play with the Concept.

The true character of the Leibnizian game is the game of inventing principles. It is a game of filling holes, in which emptiness is imagined“.

I started to explore the website about Deleuze and discovered that he also admired Spinoza, the Philosopher of the Emotion and Nietzsche, the Philosopher of the Will.

After reading some of his teachings I decided to buy his books.

This blog is a first impression of Deleuze.

I want to start with a few Citations.

In creativity lies the secret: to bring into existence and not to judge. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could ever bear on the work to come?”

Philosophers introduce new concepts, they explain them, but they don’t tell us, not completely anyway, the problems to which those concepts are a response. [...] The history of philosophy, rather than repeating what a philosopher says, has to say what he must have taken for granted, what he didn’t say but is nonetheless present in what he did say.”

When someone asks ‘what’s the use of philosophy?’ the reply must be aggressive, since the question tries to be ironic and caustic. Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy which saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought. . . . Philosophy is at its most positive as a critique, as an enterprise of demystification”.

One must ask, what does a woodworker create? What does a musician create? For me, a philosopher is someone who creates concepts. This implies many things: that the concept is something to be created, that the concept is the product of a creation“.

If philosophy has a positive and direct relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing itself, according to what it is, in its difference from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference

It’s just like theology: everything about it is quite rational if you accept sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the incarnation. Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational-not sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift.

Spinoza is the Christ of philosophers and the greatest philosophers are hardly more than apostles who distance themselves from or draw near to this mystery“.

The great theories of the Ethics . . . cannot be treated apart from the three practical theses concerning consciousness, values and the sad passions

When we stop obeying God, the State, our parents, reason appears and persuades us to continue being docile because it says to us: it is you who are giving the orders. Reason represents our slavery and our subjection as something superior, which makes us reasonable beings“.

That identity not be first, that it exist as a principle but as a second principle, as a principle become; that it revolve around the Different: such would be the nature of a Copernican revolution which opens up the possibility of difference having its own concept, rather than being maintained under the domination of a concept in general already understood as identical“.

History progresses not by negation and the negation of negation, but by deciding problems and affirming differences. It is no less bloody and cruel as a result. Only the shadows of history live by negation“.

This world does not exist in itself; it exists only in the individual notions that express this world“.

We are points of view on the world. It is not the subject that explains the point of view; it is the point of view that explains the subject“.

The Idea that Identity is Difference can be easily proved by the fact that if Identity is One Every Thing would be the Same. The Identity who is Difference is an always-differentiating process always folding, unfolding, and refolding. Deleuze calls this Identity The Fold (Le Pli).

An Identity is the Sum of many Differences which are or were Identities of their own until someone started to “fight” the Identity. Fighting Identity is the task of the Philosopher. He (or she) has to break the Unity by creating a new Concept.

A philosopher creates a concept and the artists create new qualitative combinations of sensation and feeling. They give Life to the concept because Life is Emotions and Sensations. In the last phase science creates quantitative theories based on fixed points of reference.

They will never find the Unifying Central Point of Reference. This Point moves when the Creative Power opens up new Points of View of the Fold.

The world is a Body of infinite folds and surfaces that twist and weave through compressed time and space (The Chronotope).

Humans are the Observers and the Creators of the Fold.

An Independent Thinking Consciousness is an Illusion. We think that our thoughts are the cause of our Actions but they are the Effects of our own Actions and the Actions of Others.

We are experiencing beings and our experience generates novelty (difference).

Novelty is the seed of an idea.

Good and Evil are the illusions of a moralistic worldview that does nothing but reduce our power to act and encourages the experience of the sad passions.

We are In the World and not Alone in the Universe.

Our engagement with others determinates our power to Act and our ability to experience Joy.

To live well is to fully express one’s power, to go to the limits of one’s potential“.

LINKS

A Short Introduction to the Work of Deleuze

About Points of View

About Deleuze and the Limits of Reason

About Deleuze and Morality