Posts Tagged ‘Age of Enlightenment’

How the Proof of the Pudding is Really in the Eating

Monday, August 25th, 2008

When you want to know the truth you are looking for facts. This seems very evident but Philosophy and especially the field of Epistemology has spend a lot of time to find out if this Statement about Truth is really True.

The first step is to look up the definition of the word “fact“. We use Wordnet to do this. WordNet is a semantic lexicon for the English Language. The database contains about 150,000 words.

Fact: A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred.
Fact: A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
Fact: An event known to have happened or something known to have existed.
Fact: A concept whose truth can be proved.

The meaning of words changes in history. If you want to know how the meaning is changed you have to look up the Etymology of the word.

Fact: 1539, “action” especially “evil deed,” from L. factum “event, occurrence,” lit. “thing done,” from neut. pp. of facere “to do”. Usual modern sense of “thing known to be true” appeared 1632, from notion of “something that has actually occurred.”

When we combine the result of both dictionaries we see that the original meaning of the word “Fact” is-related to the word “Event”. Later around 1632 it changed into a concept “whose truth can be proved”.

To find more about the meaning of the word Event we can look for all the occurrences of this word in the sentences of English language. One of the scientists who spend a lot of time researching the meaning of the word “Event” is George Lakoff. He defined The Event Structure Metaphor.

A Metaphor Is-A Mapping. A Mapping Is-A Relation between two Domains, the Source and the Target.

The Event Structure Metaphor is one of the most widespread of all the conceptual metaphors in the world. It maps from the source domain of Space to the target domain of Events, and leads to the following concepts:

A State Is-A Location (a bounded region in space).
A Change Is-A Movement (into or out of bounded region).
A Cause Is-A Force.
An Action Is-A Self-Propelled Movement.
A Purpose Is-A Destination.
A Mean Is-A Path to destinations.
A Difficulty Is-A Blockage.
Expected Progress Is-A Travel Schedule.
A Schedule Is-A Virtual Traveler, who reaches pre-arranged destinations at pre-arranged times.
An External Event Is-A Large Moving Object.
A Long-term, purposeful activity Is-A Journey.

An Event Is-A Blockage that prevents us to Move from One Destination to an other Destination in the Journey called Life. To Move from one Destination to an other Destination we are Propelling our Self. Sometimes we are propelled By something else, An External Event. If this Happens it feels like we are hit by a Large Moving Object.

When we are Hit by an External Event “things get out of hand” or “we are not able to keep a tight rein on the situation” or “we are not going with the flow” or “things take a turn for the worse“.

A Fact is an Event that Causes the Emotion of Frustration (Anger, Irritation, Sadness, Worry,..). An Event Forces us to Move Away from our Original Route, the Path that leads us to the Destination that we wanted to Reach in Life. We have to take a Detour.

What happened around 1632?

Around 1632 Francis Bacon advocated a new method for achieving knowledge, based on careful observation and eliminative induction. Bacon warned that effective reasoning must be freed from the “idolatrous” influence of human nature (Emotions & Imagination).

Francis Bacon started The Age of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative philosophical system which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality. Much later Emmual Kant dedicated his Critique of Pure Reason to Francis Bacon.

What happened?

Facts were moved from the Emotions (Judgement, Opinion) to the Level of the Mind (Truth). With the help of Logic it would be possible to Prove Everything.

According to Aristotle there are four types of truth: universal affirmatives take the form: All S are P, universal negations take the form: No S are P, particular affirmatives take the form: Some S are P, particular negations take the form: Some S are not P. Later so called contingent truths were added. They are dependent on the situation/context.

The Quest for the Eternal Logical Truth is still going on. Many very bright minds have tried to find a solution but the terrible thing is that the Truth of a logical proposition is entirely dependent on the Truth of the Facts that are put into the Proposition. We are again in a State of Infinite Regress.

One of these bright minds was Frank Plumpton Ramsey (1903-1930). Ramsey lived and worked in Cambridge and was befriended with Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, J. M. Keynes and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ramsey created a theory called Pragmatism.

In his paper ‘Truth and Probability’, written in 1926, Ramsey shows that if people in their behaviour obey a set of axioms or rules, the measure of our ‘degrees of belief’ will satisfy the laws of probability. The Truth is highly related to Judgment and “if we have analysed judgment we have solved the problem of truth“.

“..it is, for instance, possible to say that a chicken believes a certain sort of caterpillar to be poisonous, and mean by that merely that it abstains from eating such caterpillars on account of unpleasant experiences connected with them. … An exact analysis of this relation would be very difficult, but it might well be held that in regard to this kind of belief the pragmatist view was correct, i.e. that the relation between the chicken’s behaviour and the objective factors was that the actions were such as to be useful if, and only if, the caterpillars were actually poisonous. Thus any set of actions for whose utility p is a necessary and sufficient condition might be called a belief that p, and so would be true if p, i.e., if they are useful“.

What Ramsey is telling is that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating“.

What happened?

We are finally back to square one! After about 400 years of Enlightment we have to admit that the only way to find the Truth is to find out if what we Think is true is really True. We don’t have to use very complicated reasoning to prove what we are already experiencing in the Real World.

LINKS

About the Age of Reason

About Pragmatism and Ramsay

About Truth

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Economy, Philosophy | Comments Off

About Cradle to Cradle

Friday, August 15th, 2008

In 1998 William McDonough and Michael Braungart wrote an article called The NEXT Industrial Revolution. It was the start of a new sustainable design philosophy called Cradle to Cradle. Cradle to Cradle wants to restore the Natural Cycle.

Cradle to Cradle is based on three pillars: Equity (Social Justice), Economy (Market Viability), and Ecology (Environmental Intelligence).

 A citation out of the Next Industrial Revolution:

“Many people believe that new industrial revolutions are already taking place, with the rise of cybertechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. It is true that these are powerful tools for change. But they are only tools-hyperefficient engines for the steamship of the first Industrial Revolution. Similarly, eco-efficiency is a valuable and laudable tool, and a prelude to what should come next. But it, too, fails to move us beyond the first revolution. It is time for designs that are creative, abundant, prosperous, and intelligent from the start. The model for the Next Industrial Revolution may well have been right in front of us the whole time: a tree“.

A citation out of Carl Jung, Prologue from “Memories, Dreams, Reflections“:

“Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away-an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains“.

In the introduction chapter of A Thousands Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, characterize the rhizome by six principles:

  • Connectivity

The capacity to aggregate by making connections at any point on and within itself.

  • Heterogeneity

The capacity to connect anything with anything other, the linking of unlike elements.

  • Multiplicity

Consisting of multiple singularities synthesized into a “whole” by relations of exteriority.

  • Asignifying rupture

Not becoming any less of a rhizome when being severely ruptured, the ability to allow a system to function and even flourish despite local breakdowns.

  • Cartography

A method of mapping for orientation from any point of entry within a “whole”, rather than by the method of tracing that re-presents an a priori path.

  • Decalcomania

Forming through continuous negotiation with its context, constantly adapting by experimentation

Cradle to Cradle (CtC) is a Design Philosophy. Design (Mapping Ideas unto A Model) is the first step in a Cyclic Process or even better a Spiraling Spiral Process.

I don’t know what the Philosphy of CtC is about the other “phases” of the Spiraling Spiral. I have not spend the time to read the Book. I am almost sure CtC is applying the Paradigm of the Age of Enlightment that lies behind the Industrial Revolution. Cradle to Cradle wants to CONTROL Nature by COPYING Nature.

The Question is Do We (and CtC) really Understand How Nature Works?

Is Nature Working at all?

Is Nature Functioning “like-a” Machine?

Are we able to Copy something we don’t Understand?

What are We Copying?

Is Copying without Insight perhaps a Way to Create something New?

Does it Matter if we are Creating Something New without Knowing what We are Doing”?

Is Life Itself not just a Creating Force exploring Every Possibility Available?

What is Wrong and What is Right?

The most interesting point in the article about the Next Industrial Revolution is the Use of the Tree Metaphor.

The Tree is a very old Symbol. It represents something that starts at the Bottom (Earth) and Moves Up. When it Moves Up is expands into a Hierarchical Network. At the top of the Tree of Life (or the Axis Mundi) the Ultimate Power, the Giver of Movement and Measure, is situated. Behind the New Industrial Revolution the Hierarchy (UP) and the Part (One;Tree) of the Whole (Many;Forest) becomes visible. If we are Moving UP we are Abstracting (or Imagining with Reason).

Jung, Deleuze & Guattari look at the The Down, the Primal Source, The Unknowable, the Invisible or the Unconsciousness. The Invisible is covered by Dark Earth. It is indestructible, connected, divers, not-linear, experimenting and adapting. The Invisible is the Rhizome. Every Year out of the Invisible Rhizome A Beautifull Rose Grows and Blossoms. “What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains“. (Jung).

If we Move Down we are Acting In The World instead of Looking at the World (The Observer).

When we move Down we have to become Practical.

What is the Practical Use, The Engineering Perspective, of the Rhizome?

There are Infinite Perspectives on our Reality and Engineering is just One of Them. We could add a Social Perspective and an Ecomic Perspective just like Cradle to Cradle is trying to do but there is more. We could add a Poetic and an Artistic Perspective but there is more. We could add an Animal perspective. We could look with the Eyes of the Ape, the Cat, The Fish, the Tiger, The Bacterium, The Sea, The Clouds, The Weather. We could use our Empathy to Imagine how the Earth, The Sun, The Universe, Molecules, Cells, Atoms, Higgs Particles, Cars, Aeroplanes, Ipods are “looking” at the Ecology of My Garden, Our Village, Your Country, Their Culture. We could even Look at Ourselves.

Are we able to Unite all of these Perspectives? Yes and No.

No: they are Different.

Yes: They are Perspectives and Perspectives are Looking at the Same Thing.

They are looking at the Whole but the Whole is not a Thing. It is a interconnected Adapting Diversity. It is a highly Complex Dynamic Network of Networks of Events. We cannot detect Causality because Causality is related to a Liniair Perspective.  Every Act is the Cause and the Effect of any other Act.

If we look from a Distance (the Observer) we See Repeating Cyclic Patterns that are Self-References.

If we Find these Patterns (Frames of Reference) we Know where the Flow of Nature is moving to for a little while. The Pattern becomes Repetitive. At a sudden moment the Flow moves in another Way and we have to Observe again. If we Move with the Flow we will know Where we are “Allowed” to Build and to Grow. If we Feel the Field we will See that A Building or an Engine is already Designed and wants to Move to Reality. We don’t have to Design. The Design is Immanent. We just have to help to Materialize.

The most interesting Self-Reference to explore is I (You).

I am in the World and the World is in Me.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Ecology, Philosophy | Comments Off

About the War of Words

Monday, May 12th, 2008

The amount of people that are confused or are creating confusion is growing. It all has to do with Language. New words are created. Languages and Cultures are mixing. New Inventions and Theories are Created and Destroyed. We are in a highly creative phase, the End Game of Time Wave Zero. Is it possible to find the pattern behind this pattern?

The Encyclopedia Britannica is the oldest English-language encyclopedia still in print. It was first published between 1768 and 1771 in Edinburgh and quickly grew in popularity and size. The Brittanica expanded from 3 volumes in 1768 to 32 volumes today.

In France Diderot created the first French encyclopedia in 1745. It started as a translation of the English Cyclopedia of Ephraim Chambers. When he and his co-editor, mathematician Jean d’Alembert, were finished, they created a new work, the ‘Encyclopedie’. At that time it contained everything that was necessary to known about the Western World.

Its aim was “to collect all the knowledge that now lies scattered over the face of the earth, to make known its general structure to the men among we live, and to transmit it to those who will come after us,” to make men not only wiser” but also “more virtuous and more happy“.

Denis Diderot was one of the originators and interpreters of the Age of Enlightenment. This 18th-century movement was based on the belief that Reason could find True Knowledge.

During the Enlightment many scientists hoped that it would be possible to find the Eternal Truth, The Simple set of Rules that would Explain Every Thing. It was just a Matter of Time.

What they did not realize was that Truth is Highly Context Dependent. It is dependent on the Spirit of the Time, the Knowledge and Interpretation of the Writer of the Context, The Status of the Writer and the Genesis of Science.

Not only Knowledge changes but also Words change their meaning all the time. Everything Changes and the only thing that is left is to accept this Fact of Life.

The awareness of the problem of the Eternal Truth has created Cynicism. Scientists especially in the Social Sciences (Post-Modernism, Deconstruction) don’t believe it will be possible to find any objective general accepted pattern or explanation. They are fighting the goals of the highly rational Enlightment with very complicated rational arguments of their own.

When the exponential rise of Novelty predicted by Time Wave Zero (and other comparable models) reaches the Point Omega we will be literally lost in Space. Innovations that took centuries to happen in history will happen in a few days.

It is really true that there are no general Explanations possible? Is Everything Context Dependent?

The problem that the Eternal Change of our primary communication vehicle, Language, is creating is analyzed by many great minds in history. Perhaps the greatest genius was Wittgenstein. At the end of his life his students put all his Observations (he did not believe in Theory) in something called The Blue and Brown Books. In these books he is teaching the Art of Clarification.

Wittgenstein invented a new way of looking at the world called a Family Resemblance. If we gather together members of the same Family, they probably Look Alike, although there is no Distinctive Feature that they all share in Common. A brother and a sister might have the same dark eyes, while that sister and her father share a slightly turned-up nose.

They share a group of features, some of which are more distinctly present in some members of the family, while some features are not present at all. Wittgenstein argues that the different uses of one word and rules share the same Family Resemblance.

A Family is a Vague Set of Relationships that have something in Common but the parts of the set are Different. A Family is a unique set of permutations of distinctive features.

The only way to recognize a Family is to meet the members and create an intuition, a feeling. To do this we have to leave our study room and walk around in Reality. We have to move into the Context instead of floating above The Context.

Floating above the Context is called Imagining. There is nothing wrong with imagining. The imagination (Spirit) is the Mother of Art. Changing Art into a Science Destroys the Beauty of the Work of Art. Just like a Family a Piece of Art shows a pattern but is also shows exceptions of the pattern. The exceptions show a pattern but this pattern also contains a pattern. The world is a self-reference, a Fractal.

Scientists don’t realize that they are creating Fiction. When they would realize that they are producing Fiction they would certainly improve their Style. Scientific Fiction (a Genre) is mostly unreadable for other Scientists and especially for “Normal” people like me.

There are Many Families and there are even Families of Families. Some people have been born with a Talent to Observe one Family. Others are aware of completely different Families. All of them share features but it will never be possible to find The Set of all Sets of features. Finding the set of sets created a huge problem in Mathematics. It was the main reason why Wittgenstein changed his “theory”. He left the field of Mathematics, spend years in complete isolation (he was a teacher) until the people of Cambridge begged him to come back.

It does not help to spend a lot of time to discuss a joint Family. It only creates a War of the Words or a nicer term of Wittgenstein, A Language Game. A major part of Scientific Fiction is about the Quest to find the general Definitions of the set of all sets, The Holy Grail of Science… When we spend too much time to Fight we will never See.

The quest of Objectivity shows itself in the Use of Statistics. Scientists are unable to find the right Context (a Family) but they are also unaware of the Fractal Structure of the Universe. They are also completely unaware about the boundaries of Statistics. They accept the General Truth of Statistics without any awareness of the background.

What is the solution to all these problems?

The fist step is to accept the Spiraling Spiral and Self-Reference as the fundamental Fractal of the Universe. It is really a simple clarifying explanation.

The next step is to determine the Level and the Phase of the Spiral You are in (Style, Chronotope, Family, Network, Field of Reference, Bias). It determines what You are able to See and Do. It defines the Place in Time/Space you are Watching. If You want to move to another Level or State change the State of Your Awareness.

The last step is to feel the Movement of the Force of Life, The Tao,  and connect to this Movement. If you have accomplished this all the Clarifications you are looking for are given to you by the Great Force of Creation, Inspiration.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Language, Philosophy | Comments Off