Self

Self: a self-referential meaning. That is inherent is the sense of the word itself. It is self-referential in the sense of a recursive acronym. For example, WINE. Wine represents, ‘WINE Is Not an Emulator’. The first letter of the first word represented by the acronym, is the acronym itself. In terms of meaning, this translates to defining self with self present—and key—in the definition.

Other words of a similar nature may be, ‘truth’, and ‘love’. Concept-constructs of that which can be imagined purely by itself, with no references or relations to other things or standards. In other words, of that that exist without necessary relation to others, being independent of context-dependent interpretation. Simply ‘selfly’—or ‘self-ful’. Words of this nature can have no exact opposites, like the number ‘0’ in a way.

Both self-referential in meaning and existence, self is a noun that admits no adjectival qualification. For instance, there can be no such thing as ‘good self’ or ‘bad self’. Self is self-contained: it is exactly what it is.

Beautiful.

Science with Commonsense

When it seems like a science result is about providing proof for commonsense; this would be bad if it was that we needed proof of commonsense in order to regard or appreciate it. But then, it is good to get some scientifically originated affirmation of sense that should be common: to see the science of the sense.

When the results of a scientific investigation contradicts true commonsense, they may tell us that it is counterintuitive, trying to overlay our doubts with grammar—semantics. But commonsense ought not be conflated with intuition, even if their outcomes might be similar.

So, if a ‘scientific’ result contradicts true commonsense, then, the investigation probably got something wrong, somehow. But then we know that the scientific method, which is a very commonsensical process, is very much involved in the identification of sense that we can make common.

My science versus your science

Scientific results and associated recommendations do not always align on the same issues. That’s part of the beauty of academia. In cases like these, some people take sides, assuming different opinions.

It is interesting to think of personal science: my science versus your science. This thought coming from arguments about the relativity of truth and morality: ideas that speak of truth as truths that may vary from person to person — that my truth about a certain issue could be different from yours.

For differing ideas on the same issue and in the same domain to be true at the same time, however contadictory, truth has to be personal. In the same vein, for contradictory scientific opinions to be valid at the same time, they have to be personal. But in the case of science, this sounds particularly funny — almost unscientific.

Philosophy Versus Statistics in Decision Making

The use of statistical inference/probabilities can, by essence, never lead to truth, no matter how well done. Philosophy, however, when done correctly, necessarily leads to truth.

Even the notion of statistical fact is paradoxical. Because something should not both be fact and statistical.

One summary of the philosophical enterprise whose formalisation has helped humanity greatly is the scientific method. It put a structure to some aspect of the practice of philosophy.

The book title by Sir Isaac Newton, ‘the mathematical principles of natural philosophy,’ hints clearly at the place of mathematics in the world: the pursuit and appreciation of truth — and beauty. The same, obviously, is the object of philosophy.

Experientially, a lot of our reasoning, decision making, and things we’ve come to ‘know’ in general follow from some application of the scientific method — up to a point at least. However, like basically everything in life, it’s ‘garbage in, garbage out’ (GIGO). Hence the criticality of critical reasoning.

Philosophy is fundamental to ‘political’ decision making, for instance utilitarianism, capitalism, feminism, socialism, Rastafarianism etc, and it’s not perfect here because of the GIGO factor. And because these are high level philosophical views whose foundations might themselves be ‘truthly’ flawed.

let’s stop making legislation (that is, absolute decisions) based on statistical/probabilistic inferences alone. Philosophy, true philosophy, fundamentals philosophy, philosophy in the sense of Lao Tzu or Aristotle should be used in some way as an arbiter in this regard.

A déjà vu speaks…

Ever had the recollection that made you think “I’ve been here before,” having the experience that a scene in your life was on replay for a few moments. Did it feel like you had a vision and it just came to pass? You had seen the future, and knew it only after knowing it.

Yes, the experience was real, to you, but the reason is psychological; it’s a kind of self delusion where one anticipates the ability to see the future subconsciously. [But that’s not going to do for an explanation. What, particularly, tickles one to have the experience, and what determines when or if it happens for any individual? …] There certainly are known unknowns, but the answers don’t change anything.

Trash all that, I had the experience and I know it’s real; it isn’t any delusion. I saw some scene in my future before I experienced it. You can’t just explain it away and blame me on top of it. [You’re in denial ma’am.] Like, seriously?

Pause.

Déjà vu’s say that a specific kind of time travel is possible.
That we can see the future makes prophecy not implausible.
And the future is (or can be) known exactly,
by some one,
or someone.
Human beings have the faculty to perceive the yet to be.
Or, perhaps, even be able to originate this
and follow through (like God):
guiding randomness towards a certain order.

So the randomness in life may be called into question. Materialism, certainly, becomes questionable. And causality (physical, volitional…) has another dimension emphasised: spiritual causality? Fate, destiny, becomes a convolution of action, and some ‘divine’ ordination; it seems fixed, but is it really. We have volition—like God. Yet volition is complicit in the fate that was seen after it was quietly told.

Information, Being, and Living

From information theory, we might want to say these things relating to life, nature, and society. Each thought has significant consequences.

1.)
Wherever there is change, information has been generated or effected. This is the establishment of purpose and meaning, since a destination becomes implied by change, or because of it.

E.g. Movement (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual …).

Every change is a cause. And we change as we move, exercise, take action, make action….

2.)
Change, or information, does not have to be perceived for it to exist. However, that it exists should mean that it is perceivable.

E.g. The cycle of cell replacement in the body. Healing and repentance. Impression of righteousness, faith, hope, love….

3.)
A state of constancy (like a change with difference only in time) is itself information: speaking either of a powerful inertia, or of a balance of influences. Constancy tells one that another can be trusted to be/do ….

E.g. Attitudes and character. God. Commonsense. Physics. Satan. Chemistry. Fidelity. Biology.

4.)
If an apparently random system, or system far from equilibrium, continuously produces information, then over time, that system will arrive at an equilibrium position or system (even if complex).

E.g. The development of the United States. Origin of the world. Rockefeller’s increase in wealth. Socialism. Scientology. Increase in people giving away their virginity during their teenage years. Gluttony in food, drink etc. Divorce. Social organisation ….

Between Pressure and Pain

Between pressure and pain
is a connectrix
that doesn’t exist
One blends into the other
Nay, one is the other
For pain places pressure
and pressure is a pain

Between pressure and pain
is a basin
into which they flow
It holds neither only pressure
and neither only pain
Never mixing though
but together both present