Structure and Relation

[BadgerJelly]

KEY (I will try to express the concepts I think are vague as bets I can):

"Entertainment" is more potent than it seems. The path to anything is brought about through distraction/attraction and this is what "entertainment" is.

"Tradition" > Internal (isolated) mirror of "society". (Directly from "entertainment" with motion towards "intuition" and "design")
"Myth" > External (communal) mirror of "society". (Directly from "entertainment" with motion towards "ritual" and "meditation"
"Design" > Design, Method and structure. (Directly from "action" and "tradition" with motion towards disbelief and order)
"Intuition" > Dominant spontaneously internal method. (Directly from "tradition" and "imagination" with motion towards disbelief and disorder/chaos)


Is there a subject that does not fit into this diagram? How can it be improved?


I have classed "religion" as "Belief", "philosophy" as "disbelief", "art" as "chaos/disorder" and "science" as "order".

Also disorder/chaos and disbelief gives isolation whereas order and belief give commune (intro and extra).

"Sport" I believe would fit into "action" with its neighbours being "design" and "meditation".

All central topics are to "entertain" essentially. Science (as I loosely define it) appears to be best approached through "action" and its opposite, "imagination".

As for "philosophy" I look at this as "disbelief" because a philosopher is one who questions without want of solid "answers". In philosophy the art of disbelief is key, non-conformity and questioning is what drives this force.

Art and philosophy are very introverted topics because they involve the individual expression whereas religion and science are extroverted and they are about relating to others views in a communal fashion in opposition to art and philosophy which are more raw. It could even be correct to say here that Art and Philosophy are "selfish" and Science and Religion are more "selfless".

Probably the most ambiguous term here is "ritual". Its opposite being design may give a greater hint as to what my concept is. With "design" we make towards a purposeful intent, but with "ritual" intention is much more vague and open (being more polarized towards "disorder/chaos" than it is "order".

I did design this as part of my novel then forgot about the novel and got carried away! As this diagram is symmetrical it is not a true representation of "society" but you can easily imagine a more organic representation where certain aspects of "society" are altered ... eg. a more "religiously" inclined "society" would be more dominant "ritually" than by "designation" and more social upheaval would be the product of increased "action".


Are there any subjects that do not fit well into this representation?

As noted above "sport" can easily be regarded as "action" being a form of physical "meditation" with structure "design" that gives "entertainment" communally.

I am asking you to think of ANY subject and see how it can fit in. As another example lets consider "history". Now I find this to be a problem because it appears to cover a vast area including "tradition" and "imagination" ... thus it would appear "history" is a subject of "intuition" (being an internal mirror of "society")

[BadgerJelly]

Something just came to me today during a conversation with someone ...

Order is not knowing and Disorder/chaos is knowing.

Knowing something though does not necessarily mean you understand it! That is the entire point of artistic and emotional expression. We "feel" something as right or wrong yet we do not know why it is so even though we know it to be "correct".

Not knowing something is how science moves. Although ordered it is false and not knowing. It is an assumption of reality to understand reality not an actual precise representation of reality. Every premise is a falsehood at its core but necessary to discern order and form through perception.

If you have no idea what I am talking about don't worry about it! This is for my benefit when I return to this side of the forum.

[sponge]

Something just came to me today during a conversation with someone ...Order is not knowing and Disorder/chaos is knowing.Knowing something though does not necessarily mean you understand it! That is the entire point of artistic and emotional expression. We "feel" something as right or wrong yet we do not know why it is so even though we know it to be "correct". Not knowing something is how science moves. Although ordered it is false and not knowing. It is an assumption of reality to understand reality not an actual precise representation of reality. Every premise is a falsehood at its core but necessary to discern order and form through perception.If you have no idea what I am talking about don't worry about it! This is for my benefit when I return to this side of the forum.

Are you ready to return to this yet? I’m interested in the idea that you seem to be setting out – that scientific exploration and sensory perception are adapted methods of thinking in order to deal with the problem of understanding order and form. If this is near what you are thinking, it sounds novel and worthy of discussion.

[Percarus]

Again, I mentioned it a long time ago, I love the categorization in the diagram. Has anyone ever thought of attributing emotions to each of the four main fields (Philosophy, Art, Science, Religion). That is, let us assume 'misery' for one (as an emotion), there is place for misery in religion (if you are an advocate of hell), no room for misery in science or philosophy but yet room for it in art through expressive ideals.

Sure, it may be erroneous to classify human emotions (melancholy, joy, paranoia, happiness) to fields of lore, but maybe we can assign fields to the emotions most suited given probability distributions. Ahem, the 'knowing', 'not knowing' concept... It is rather baffling to think science as a concept of 'not knowing'. I would perceive the very act of science as a methodical procedure with the main purpose of knowing or accomplishing something. I did understand what you meant a couple of weeks ago but now I forgot... Can you clarify BadgerJelly?

[BadgerJelly]

Sponge -

I’m interested in the idea that you seem to be setting out – that scientific exploration and sensory perception are adapted methods of thinking in order to deal with the problem of understanding order and form.

I am not ready to return to this yet. I would not use the term "problem" though. Basically I am going to have to be VERY carefully with every word I use. A problem is an untruth ... I don't know how else to put it yet.

Percarus -

Emotion is the crux of this. It is the underlying principle of our "experience" ... it is experience, it is existence. This categorisation is without emotional content in order to discern the underlying element that may or may not be emotional? It is an investigation of being through near emotionless examination in order to find emotional objectivity (albeit in a abstract frame of reference!).

Ahem, the 'knowing', 'not knowing' concept... It is rather baffling to think science as a concept of 'not knowing'. I would perceive the very act of science as a methodical procedure with the main purpose of knowing or accomplishing something. I did understand what you meant a couple of weeks ago but now I forgot... Can you clarify BadgerJelly?

Scientific fact is not a "truth". It is a path taken to find and/or invent what we generally refer to as reality.

You use words like purpose and accomplish and they have no place here I am afraid. Emotional content and coordination are not things I am working with.

I have found that I have, to some degree, been treading in the steps of Jung unknowingly. I have yet to read through enough of his works to see if my line of inquiry is the same or not and I have to wait to read his works before I have taken my next few steps.

I have nothing more to add here just yet and clarity is something I have issues with because I do not understand what this term means to me yet or what it means to others underneath the mask of the ego.

[Percarus]

I was just pondering over your Venn Diagram again Badger. I notice the overlap categorizations and their meanings... I was wondering if with every overlap you also insinuate that the opposite may happen. For instance, once we have a balance of Science, Religion, Philosophy, and Art the final product is entertainment, but can the anti-thesis also happen? That is, religion curses you to hell, philosophy is nihilistic in thought, science becomes a dead-end having reached ultimate knowledge, and Art becomes utter blasphemy. In this case 'entertainment' would not erupt and instead utter monotony would result. So each segment is indeed existing in dualities from the two extremes - is this what you mean?

I like your diagram, I assume you made it yourself. Ever thought of making it 3D in 2D with additional factors?

[BadgerJelly]

I imagine this diagram as being 3D. I cannot think of anything else other that Order/Chaos and Belief/Disbelief (the "commune/isolation" are just a frame of human reference for myself that makes sense to me).

If you imagine this as a fluid system then it is possible for only science and art to combine (Chaos and Order) and also for religion and philosophy to combine (Belief and disbelief). I would not say that they cancel each other out, rather they would create.

Art is Chaos not blasphemy in my "key". I am trying to see past the dichotomy of language really, there is no dualism here it is merely a tool not a reality.

In this case 'entertainment' would not erupt and instead utter monotony would result.

In my mind it is the exact opposite. As remarked upon earlier I see "entertainment" as the "force" of distraction/attraction. In a human respect when we are attracted to something so much we are distracted from everything else and vice versa. This is the beauty that makes being BE. To be entertained and dance around these seemingly opposing aspects is what makes the "all/nothing" (Nallthing) "tick/tock".

Metaphorically speaking the tick and tock are not real only the pendulum. The "betweeness", the boundary not the bounded, the catigorisation not the categories.

I realise this is ambiguous but like I said this is something for me to work on for myself.Thanks for your interest in what I find interesting ... or rather what "entertains" me.

If we are not "entertained" (attracted/distracted) what are we?

[Percarus]

Ok, I thought I’d add a new perspective to this topic. So far we established a paradigm for ‘structure and relation’ based on schools of study. We can also split existence into the living and non-living, in this sense ‘realism’ and ‘multisense’. Each category is split into various different segments, and unlike the Venn diagram this categorization accounts for aspects with no sentience as a reference point. It in particular isolates consciousness from its non-existential opposite. This can be seen as shown below:



However, in categorising existence and schools of knowledge in this manner we are still attributing and acknowledging interpretation of its sub-division purely on an interpretative manner from a ‘sentient’ being. The ‘realism’ factors are in effect abstract constructs, whereas in the four main category based Venn diagram they are better associated with divisions in knowledge (still abstract but to a lesser extent since less specific). The existence of AI (from its perspective) would warrant that various facets of the multisense be interpreted as ‘abstract’ concepts – I do not necessarily believe that AI would necessarily abide by emotion, instinct, and intuitive aspects.

I personally like the following (below) trinity in structure of relation, the problem is it perceives sentience as being itemizable and it rules out, to some extent, the aspect of ‘free-will’. But this not altogether as ‘formal systems’ would comprise of the living and hence is a ‘decidable’ factor that can distinguish and process mathematical (scientific or nature intended) parameters with reason (computations). This as shown:



Ok, this diagram was slightly taken out of context, but I believe it acts as a fundamental explanatory block for relations of existence, this where the ‘mathematical structures’ accounts for the abstract, and ‘computations’ account for the non-living.

The following diagram (again taken slightly out of context) functions on the principles of dualities (the thesis and anti-thesis) and everything in between, all of existence, is deemed as the relation component. This as shown:



I would argue that the very aspect of ‘synthesis’ accounts for the ‘living’, and in the above diagram the relation accounts for the abstract, which in turn is attributed meaning given sentient synthesis due to awareness of the two extremes. The problem with the above categorization is that different abstract relations may in turn solicit additional antithesis’ to its comparable thesis. But the thing is that opposing relations will not necessarily lead to synthesis of the other range of relations without consideration of the absolute (existence versus nothingness for instance).

I guess that when examining structure and relation, in regards to existence, we then need to be situational in favourance to the model that best fits a practical situation. It would be erroneous for an engineer to consider the four model approach in his/her specific school, although it may suit a philosopher fine. Physisists may indeed opt for the last two model approach given their rational Occam’s Razor like reasoning.

Your Venn diagram Badger seems fine in representation of the essence, and what is important to, the human spirit so to speak. It is good for exploration of the soul, whereas the three diagrams shown previously would be best suited for, accordingly:
i) Academia related studies of existence, for the common man;
ii) Engineering applications and think-how; and
iii) Scientific itemization of our reality.

Would it be practical to mix all these different relations into one concept? Would such an itemization lead to near-absolute knowledge? Would the existence of AI warrant that it perceives all these relations simultaneously through computations with the additive aspect of a human interpreter?

[BadgerJelly]

I find some of your ideas a little too concrete for my personal liking but I enjoyed reading about your ideas.

I am glad you have seen that my diagram is not exactly about "Relation and Structure" (I just couldn't think of a better title at the time!).

Your Venn diagram Badger seems fine in representation of the essence, and what is important to, the human spirit so to speak.

I wouldn't use those exact terms, but yeah. It is a personal thing like I said.

As for the combination of these ideas into one homogeneous entity I see where your interest is going AND I have to admit it was somewhat my intention to follow this path previously (although not now). My idea was (for the purposes of fiction) to turn this into a mnemonic system that entwined conscious thought with the unconscious (a somewhat alchemical approach).

My idea is to look at the simplest forms not the greater picture they can amalgamate into. For me all we arrive at is through our brains (Not sure anyone could disagree with this unless you have a religious tendency and/or are scientifically skeptical; either approach is valid so nothing is concrete).

I'll repeat again that for me all we have is belief/disbelief and order/disorder. What you refer to as synthesis I call the "betweeness" or "boundary" and these terms are not about the commune of dichotomies so synthesis doesn' work for me because I assume not to assume ... in other words I tend to side with "disbelief" in my rationality and "belief" in my intuition. This is about communication (attraction/distraction) and the conflict that ensues.

Another thing has cropped up in finding my scribblings from early last year. Disbelief= Time (temporal), Disorder/Chaos= Space, Order= Waste (nothingness) and Belief= Defense (concrete reality if you will?)

These were my original concepts since I was 16 yrs old (Time, Space, Waste and Saurus). There are also two "other" concepts that I have yet to be able to order verbally called Bizarre (probably amalgamation?) and Darkwing (probably the betweeness?).

This is my PERSONAL self-made mythology. I don't understand it but I have spent the vast majority of my life developing it and learning about it. I see much the same thing in all mythology I have simply made my own subconsciously in the form of an epic I have yet to complete (and that will never be "complete" until I die).

Anyway enough narcissism for today! :)

[kangs79]

When I look at your structure and relation chart. The main thing I noticed is that the opposites are the same.
both sides are equal forwards and backwards. Through the dance of evolution one opposite creates the other.
1. religions creates new philosophy and philosophy creates new religion
2. From art comes science and from science comes new art
3. Imagination leads to an action and action leads to development of a healthy imagination
4. Ritual creates new designs through evolution and new Designs lead to new rituals
5. Intuition leads one to meditate on a subject and meditation leads to a higher intuition
6. myth creates tradition and old traditions create new myths

All this evolutionary dance is a form of entertainment called life.

[Percarus]

I came across the following picture and I tried thinking these philosophical statements in context of the four proposed relations; philosophy, science, art, and religion.


* Science would be categorised in ‘what is reality’
* Art in ‘I think, therefore I am’
* Philosophy in ‘Is truth relative’
* Religion in ‘what is the meaning of life’

Of course, all are philosophical dealings, but the way I was able to attribute a section to each line poses the notion that philosophy is more closely intertwined with the other relations (art, science, religion) than any individual relation would be with others. Philosophy in this sense requires a great degree of knowledge in regards to the other fields and then I would argue that maybe the circle of philosophy itself should be expanded with a dotted area enclosure to encompass the other fields. Philosophy cannot be seen to exist isolated from the other three parameters. What do you think BadgerJelly, can you give me any examples of philosophy existing on its own?

[BadgerJelly]

As stated before the Science/Religion/Art/Philosophy is just a reflection of two dichotomies; order/disorder and belief/disbelief.

So ... "What is reality" = Order, "I think therefore I am" = Belief, "What is the meaning of life?" = Disorder and finally "Is truth relative?" = Disbelief.

Obviously these questions cross over in places (especially when it comes to questions of "disorder"). "What is the meaning of life" seems to be a disbelief question as well as a semi disordered/ordered one. Disorder is a very difficult thing to tie down and that is why I have referred to disorder as "Art" because Art is, in my mind, a reflection of the unconscious chaotic mind and the complexity of nature through emotional expression.

I merely labelled the subject matters science/art/philosophy/religion to make the concepts more tangible emotionally. They are not hard and fast and certainly not a direct attempt to order all subject matters ... that was a simply happenstance of me processing my idea of the structure of cognition through the process we call questioning.

I have said before it is not merely the question that matters. It is the structure of the question that holds something innately "special" about it and closer to nature.

One thing that has been on my mind lately is to introduce the temporal/eternal dichotomy ... not sure that is possible though in the way I would like.

[kangs79]

I don't think any person should look at all these ideas and think they are self-sustaining. Every idea needs many other ideas to survive and the parts cannot function without the whole. The whole will always exist even if it is diminished in stature. order/chaos/belief/disbelief all function as one and compliment each other. If you diminish one you diminish the other. These ideas can only be separated in writing or thinking but not in reality.

[BadgerJelly]

I agree (I think?).

All is one and one is all. We can take a piece of the whole to learn more about the whole but never can we take the whole.

[BadgerJelly]

Note to self:

Science tries to tell us what something does.
Art tries to tell us what something is.

Does-is and is-does?

[BadgerJelly]

Just marking this so I can find it more easily :)

idea >> meaning/mechanism >> system > idea ... basic heuristic

Cross over creates "spontaneous" idea and adjusts system/s

mechanism must have meaning, and meaning must have mechanism. One without the other is simply an incomplete idea