Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
Mine is one where people are more important than concepts, principles, and ideologies. My decisions in that regard have more to do with empathy and compassion than a playing out between two contributing moral principles ("Atoms")
Click to expand...
Why do you think that empathy and compassion have nothing to do with complementation between opposites?

Why do you thing that developing natural responsibility ( as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 , by reducing self-interference that eliminate each others' manifestations ) have nothing to do with empathy and compassion?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Why do you think that empathy and compassion have nothing to do with complementation between opposites?'
Click to expand...

I don't think that empathy and compassion don't often involve a complementation of what would otherwise be opposing ideals.
I'm just asserting that they aren't generated by such or some kind of intellectual juggling of such.
And the way we describe our relations and intimacy with each other is a far more complex use of language than x/y linkage.

Why do you thing that developing natural responsibility ( as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 ) have nothing to do with empathy and compassion?
Click to expand...

Fortunately our natural ability to respond to each other and to take care in our communal actions is not dependent upon the idealized construct you have presented.

Certainly I agree that one should bring awareness to hir (his or her) cogitations. It's so easy and so human to stop at a characterization that seems to embrace so much but ignores so much more than it embraces.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).
Click to expand...


A clever programmer would cause it to make mistakes on occasion, just the way that people would.

This programmer outclevered him/herself. The silliness parameter must have been left at 1.0 after debugging, rather than around 0.07, where it should be.
 
doronshadmi said:
EMM development is a way to do our best in order to avoid L as a resultof self made-destruction, which is derived from the ignorance of Complexity, exactly because the current understanding about Ethics is not developed beyond local understanding of that concept.
Click to expand...


I've been immoralized!

I'm fairly certain that the universe is derived from the ignorance of Complexity.

He's finally using my name properly.
 
The Man said:
Ethics ain’t pretty, simple or ‘black/white’ Doron nor is it your “EMM” coloring book.
Click to expand...
My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

Again you do not distinguish between sums and fogs.
 
Apathia said:
I'm just asserting that they aren't generated by such or some kind of intellectual juggling of such.
Click to expand...
Why to you think that there is a clear cut between empathy and compassion and intelligence?

Apathia said:
And the way we describe our relations and intimacy with each other is a far more complex use of language than x/y linkage.
Click to expand...
Have you noticed that Fogs, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity, Non-locality, Memory/Object Linkage, etc. are main principles of OM?

Apathia said:
Fortunately our natural ability to respond to each other and to take care in our communal actions is not dependent upon the idealized construct you have presented.
Click to expand...
These idealizations are the fabric of a complex realm. The Simple and the Complex plays on the same realm.

Apathia said:
It's so easy and so human to stop at a characterization that seems to embrace so much but ignores so much more than it embraces
Click to expand...

How about a realm which is the result of Simple\Complex Embrace.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Why to you think that there is a clear cut between empathy and compassion and intelligence?
Click to expand...

I don't. Those are concept words. The reality is not clear cut.


Have you noticed that Fogs, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity, Non-locality, Memory/Object Linkage, etc. are main principles of OM?
Click to expand...

Indeed I have. I'm probably the person in this thread who understands most your intentions with those terms.
But the rigid structure you make of them doesn't really serve your ethical intentions.
What's more, when applied to Mathematics, it may seem you are introducing more flexibility, but the cost to utility.
After all one can use a very dull axe as a hammer.

Again these lingustic concept words. The reality is very very not so clear cut
(as Atom X mutually independent of Atom Y).


These idealizations are the fabric of a complex realm. The Simple and the Complex plays on the same realm.



How about a realm which is the result of Simple\Complex Embrace.
Click to expand...

Oh there is a Complex but it's much more suble and complex than the X/Y Interaction construct accounts for. And its of the essence of Non-Locality that it transcends all philosophical cartoon characterizations.


Famous unfortunate example:
Hegel thought he had it all figured out in a formalized system of thought that included logic and ethics.
His logos was "Thesis/Athithesis yields a Synthesis which becomes the next Thesis to go up against an Antitheisis.
But it was just a simplistic idealized construction that fails the realities of emperical science and morality.
 
Here is some example of The Man's abilities to grasp his own words:

The Man said:
Had you actually studied history you would have found (as I have told you already) that the imposition of a singular (generally binary) logical (with us XOR against us) and particularly ethical (good XOR bad) framework has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.
Click to expand...
The Man said:
doronshadmi said:
So, once again, how do you develop a non-naïve framework that can help us to survive a technology that currently is mostly derived from binary logic?
Click to expand...
So is it just a fear of technology employing binary logic that makes you so paranoid?
Click to expand...
Most of oue technology is based on a framework that "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."

And The Man calls me paranoid.

"Nice", isn't it?

Another misunderstanding of The Man about OM:
The Man said:
You do understand that matters of ethics are still determined by people (boards, committees, judges and juries), don’t you (and why that is)? What you apparently want is ethics that can or simply will be decided by calculators and computers.
Click to expand...

Here The Man misses two things:

1) OM is a framework that is based on Ethics/Logics Linkage where in both aspect people's activity is involved (actually a measurement tool like Number is based on Memory/Object Linkage http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503).

2) The Man does not understand that computers our some agents of us, where we are complex systems that have to do their best in order to understand and develop Complexity (abstract or not).
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
mutually independent
Click to expand...
Mutual independency is not characterized only be clear cur results.

Apathia said:
Oh there is a Complex but it's much more suble and complex than the X/Y Interaction construct accounts for.
Click to expand...
If you totally ignore Simplicity you can't really understand Complexity because they "embrace" each other.

Apathia said:
Famous unfortunate example:
Hegel thought he had it all figured out in a formalized system of thought that included logic and ethics.
His logos was "Thesis/Athithesis yields a Synthesis which becomes the next Thesis to go up against an Antitheisis.
But it was just a simplistic idealized construction that fails the realities of emperical science and morality.
Click to expand...

So Hegel continued to be focused on the confrontation of opposites, where synthesis was actually a thesis of a higher confrontation of opposites.

OM's Complementary Logics is focused on the Complexity that is developed among opposites, where the opposites are the simple building-blocks of an ever developed Complexity.

Apathia said:
But the rigid structure you make of them doesn't really serve your ethical intentions.
Click to expand...
Rigid structure? please show it.

Also do you think that Ethics is only flexible?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EMM development is a way to do our best in order to avoid L as a resultof self made-destruction, which is derived from the ignorance of Complexity, exactly because the current understanding about Ethics is not developed beyond local understanding of that concept.

Here you are speaking about a situation, which is beyond our abilities to change it, and under this condition we have to decide to choose between total elimination and partial survival. EEM's principles clearly choose the second option.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that your EMM would consider such action ethical, why how genocidal of you and your EEM.

doronshadmi said:
Politics is not one some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it. Politics is definitely one of the areas that can be developed by EEM, exactly because it is one of our self-made mirrors of our civilization.
Click to expand...

So you are simply claiming that you would like politics to be logical and ethical not that it in fact is.

doronshadmi said:
The Man, your fundamental problem is that you do not distinguish between self-made conditions and non self-made conditions that are derived from conditions that are beyond our abilities to change them (non self-made Force-majeure). In this extreme situation EEM will choose to save as much as possible, in order to avoid the final value of L.

Again your naïve understanding of EEM is exposed.

Furthermore, your understanding of Politics as non self-made Force-majeure clearly demonstrates how misleading and dangerous is your notion's ability about this crucial and fine subject.
Click to expand...

Where did I claim “Politics as non self-made Force-majeure”, you do understand that people are often not logical or ethical (as considered by others), don’t you?

doronshadmi said:
The "Car case" is an analogy. You have missed the analogy because of your naïve understanding of the considered subject. The non-analogy aspect is the needed activity (abstract or not) that has to be done in order to develop our understanding of Complexity, exactly because we are some of its actual manifestations.
Click to expand...

No you simply continue to miss the point that even with all your blustering and lofty dreams your “OM” remains without and utility other then to simply feed your imagination.


doronshadmi said:
This is good enough for my conclusion about your claim:

Again you attack me instead of answering the question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.
Click to expand...

My suggestion is that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics.


doronshadmi said:
They are independent simply because they are not sub-elements of each others.

Actually the accurate statement is "mutually independent of each other", where
Mutuality is:

D=Domain

(not belong AND not not belong to D)

And independency is:

(belongs XOR does not belong to D) OR (belongs AND does not belong to D)
Click to expand...

Well thank you from demonstrating the validity of the statement you quoted from me.


doronshadmi said:
Here is some example of The Man's abilities to grasp his own words:



Most of oue technology is based on a framework that "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."
Click to expand...

It is still only you confusing binary logic with ethics Doron.

doronshadmi said:
And The Man calls me paranoid.

"Nice", isn't it?
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits…

doronshadmi said:
Another misunderstanding of The Man about OM:


Here The Man misses two things:

1) OM is a framework that is based on Ethics/Logics Linkage where in both aspect people's activity is involved (actually a measurement tool like Number is based on Memory/Object Linkage http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503).
Click to expand...

So your intent with your OM is (at least in part) to control peoples activities? Good luck with that.

doronshadmi said:
2) The Man does not understand that computers our some agents of us, where we are complex systems that have to do their best in order to understand and develop Complexity (abstract or not).
Click to expand...

So you simply don’t understand why computers even as “some agents of us” are not tasked with making ethical determinations?








doronshadmi said:
My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

Again you do not distinguish between sums and fogs.
Click to expand...

Yes I do, your "fog" sums up nothing, but your own deliberate ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
doronshadmi said:
Rigid structure? please show it.
Click to expand...

Those two concrete ontological poles and their poleA|poleb arrangements.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

In that case what is your view about this subject?


Apathia said:
I'm not a proponent of an Ethic of fixed absolutes.
People are more important than Ethics.
Click to expand...
I am talking about EEM (Evolutionary Ethics Model) where people are
some complex manifestation of a given realm.

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

In that case what is your view about this subject?



I am talking about EEM (Evolutionary Ethics Model) where people are
some complex manifestation of a given realm.

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.
Click to expand...

Yet this…

doronshadmi said:
...goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.
Click to expand...

…namely us, is specifically at the center of your “EMM“. So in your opinion such a “model” centered on us as is your “EMM” is “unreal”. Glad we could clear that up.
 
The Man said:
So your intent with your OM is (at least in part) to control peoples activities?
Click to expand...
No, OM is not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system. What I say is exactly the opposite:

Numbers are Memory/Object Linkage so they are not totally independent of us.

In that case OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use.

Now I see that you have some paranoia about OM as some kind of control system on human minds.

Well, don't you worry, the notion of a control system on human minds is derived exactly from your mechanic school of thought, who does not understand Complexity and the meaningful influence of the players on the show, that need responsibility development in order to not play their final act of this show (to determine the value of L because of self-destruction).

The Man said:
So you simply don’t understand why computers even as “some agents of us” are not tasked with making ethical determinations?
Click to expand...
Computers are nothing but some tools that reflect us, including our ethical behaviors.

The Man said:
doronshadmi said:
What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.
Click to expand...
My suggestion is that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics.
Click to expand...
Again you deal with me and do not deal with the question, shell we conclude that you actually have no answer?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.
Click to expand...

Yes.

In that case what is your view about this subject?
Click to expand...

You mean the relatoionship between science and ethics?
Most recently I touched on it in these posts:
9496, 9507, 9508, 9523.

Science merely describes the way things work. It provides discriptive information. But it's not, and cannot be proscriptive. It doesn't tell us what we morally ought to do with that information.
For that we must see beyond objects to be manipulated in a sysytem.
We must regard ourselves as subjects, as persons. We must be empathetic and compassionate, values that are born of Heart, not "Head."



In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.
Click to expand...

I'm actually with you there. Concepts of "Man" and "Earth" are not the core of my personal ethic. At the moment you are.

...goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.
Click to expand...

Yes, as a result of encountering others with an open heart, I will respect and care about all sentient beings above any catagories they happen to belong to.
 
The Man said:
…namely us, is specifically at the center of your “EMM“. So in your opinion such a “model” centered on us as is your “EMM” is “unreal”. Glad we could clear that up.
Click to expand...
No, EEM is about developing complexity (abstract or not) wherever it can be found ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ), and we are some complex forms.

In other words, you don't get EEM.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
doronshadmi said:
So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Shall we take "yes" as "there is no simplicity, there is only complexity"?

Apathia said:
Science merely describes the way things work. It provides discriptive information.
Click to expand...
Apathia, Science is not some object out there, but it is the reflection of Human\Environment Interaction, where what you call "Head"-only paradigm, is no more than 600 years old.

This "Head"-only paradigm gave us the ability to understand that we are not the center of everything by opening our eyes to Macro/Micro, so called, physical realm, where deduction is some abstract "Head"-only realm.
Apathia said:
But it's not, and cannot be proscriptive. It doesn't tell us what we morally ought to do with that information.
Click to expand...
I am talking about a scientific method that can do that, because it works from the common foundation of every phenomenon, whether it is recognized as "Heart" or "Head".

This common foundation is called direct perception, and it is the basis of any kind of mental activity, including the physical realm.

OM is a way to act from the level of direct perception, and my work is nothing but a very preliminary stage of OM's development.

Apathia said:
For that we must see beyond objects to be manipulated in a sysytem.
We must regard ourselves as subjects, as persons. We must be empathetic and compassionate, values that are born of Heart, not "Head."
Click to expand...
Direct perception ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ) is the natural foundation of both Heart AND Head, such that they complement each other into a one complex form.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.
Click to expand...

So that's where you get your math knowledge from!

This "Head"-only paradigm gave us the ability to understand that we are not the center of everything
Click to expand...

... says the man who thinks Cauchy and Gauss are not fit to lick his boots...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
... says the man who thinks Cauchy and Gauss are not fit to lick his boots...
Click to expand...
We have here a person that can't get things beyond the personal perspective of the considered subjects.

Skeptic said:
...
Nobody does. Because it's gibberish. You can't "get" gibberish because there's nothing to "get".
Click to expand...
As a result he gets nothing.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, OM is not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system. What I say is exactly the opposite:

Numbers are Memory/Object Linkage so they are not totally independent of us.

In that case OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use.
Click to expand...

So it is “not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system” but “OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use”. So you are specifically referring to how we “influence” each other and “OM's use” which “is also us”. So it is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other.



doronshadmi said:
Now I see that you have some paranoia about OM as some kind of control system on human minds.
Click to expand...

Nope just curious as to what or how you think your OM might affect the actions of people.

doronshadmi said:
Well, don't you worry, the notion of a control system on human minds is derived exactly from your mechanic school of thought, who does not understand Complexity and the meaningful influence of the players on the show, that need responsibility development in order to not play their final act of this show (to determine the value of L because of self-destruction).
Click to expand...

I’m certainly not worried. Why are you? Your OM has demonstrated absolutely no utility and that includes influencing and/or controlling anyone, but you (mostly because you are just so worried).


doronshadmi said:
Computers are nothing but some tools that reflect us, including our ethical behaviors.
Click to expand...

Computers have “ethical behaviors”? You seem to be deliberately confusing your own ethical interpretations with the operations of computers.

doronshadmi said:
Again you deal with me and do not deal with the question, shell we conclude that you actually have no answer?
Click to expand...

You asked for my suggestions and I gave them to you. That you simply don’t like them isn’t my problem, but I still recommend “that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics”.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, EEM is about developing complexity (abstract or not) wherever it can be found ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ), and we are some complex forms.

In other words, you don't get EEM.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it all too well. So since we are not the only “complexity” your “EEM” would be ‘protecting’ and “developing” then your “EEM” would consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical as long as it resulted in the ‘development’ of “some complex forms”. Your “EEM” simply makes ethically acceptable the very “L value” outcome you fear.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Shall we take "yes" as "there is no simplicity, there is only complexity"?
Click to expand...

As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity.


I am talking about a scientific method that can do that [be a moral authority], because it works from the common foundation of every phenomenon, whether it is recognized as "Heart" or "Head".

This common foundation is called direct perception, and it is the basis of any kind of mental activity, including the physical realm.
Click to expand...

The level of misunderstanding of both the scientific method and moral decision making is so great here, that I am at a complete loss as to how to make any reply.

Direct perception is the natural foundation of both Heart AND Head, such that they complement each other into a one complex form.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and dismiss me as being hopelessly blind, but I have no "direct perception" of the X/Y Linkage Foundation.
I see only a neat but of limited application intellectual, idealistic construct.
A linguistic contivance that claims to be prior to language.
It isn't. Nor is it the natural structure of language.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So it is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other.
Click to expand...

1) OM is a tool (very preliminary at this stage) and not a goal.

2) This tool is focused on the ability to define the linkage between opposites without arriving to contradiction (mutual destruction).

3) Some results of such a linkage are known as heart-properties known as empathy, compassion, Love, Tolerance, Humor, and more, which are developed exactly because they are derived from a non-trivial communication between opposites.

4) Binary Logics, which its consistency is valued by avoiding mutual destruction between opposite, has no communication abilities between opposites, because according to Binary Logics the middle is excluded, and as a result there is no such thing like opposites' communication under Binary Logics.

5) Most of our technologies for the past 600 years are derived from Binary Logics, which is a framework that has no ability to communicate between opposites; exactly because by Binary Logics the middle is excluded (we are using a black\white framework that, also according to The Man, "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.")

6) In my opinion it is about time to be developed beyond Binary Logics as the main tool of our current technological developments, where OM is a preliminary work in that direction, which is focused on the technology of the consciousness that may lead us to develop the linkage (the development of the communication) between opposites in non-destructive ways.

7) One of the result of such a linkage (the development of the communication) is non-local numbers or fogs, which are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local or the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local, exactly because the opposites known as Non-locality or Locality saves their self properties (their independent identities) through the linkage.

8) Furthermore, concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc. are OM's fundaments and are not considered anymore as "white noise" that has to be eliminated in order to get some fixed results (like sums, for example).

The Man said:
Computers have “ethical behaviors”?
Click to expand...
Since they are our agents, they also reflects our ethical skills.

The Man said:
You asked for my suggestions and I gave them to you. That you simply don’t like them isn’t my problem, but I still recommend “that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics”.
Click to expand...
The Man instead of being my shrink, please simply answer to my question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction?

The Man said:
"actually study logics and ethics”
Click to expand...
Done all along the way, and exactly because of this intensive study I have found that OM's development or any other tool that is developed beyond excluded middle "communication" between opposites, is one of the most important projects that have to be done in these days.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Oh I get it all too well. So since we are not the only “complexity” your “EEM” would be ‘protecting’ and “developing” then your “EEM” would consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical as long as it resulted in the ‘development’ of “some complex forms”. Your “EEM” simply makes ethically acceptable the very “L value” outcome you fear.
Click to expand...
No The Man, you still do not understand that EEM will do its best in order to save and develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract), so the chance that EEM will consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical action, simply demonstrate your mechanical and excluded-middle reasoning about a concept like Complexity.

Furthermore you still understand the internal dynamical forces that govern the behavior of our civilization (for example: Politics) as non self-made Force-majeure, so we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure.

That is not in the limited position of The Man's reasoning, will find that EEM is the last method that will be forced to consider the destruction of the entire human race in order to save Complexity.

The current discommunication between Logics and Ethics is in a "better" position than EEM in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration, but persons like The Man, which understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure, can't get that.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Please provide your terms of these concepts.
Click to expand...

I should have said, "As you are using those words, what you call Simplicity and Complexity do not exist, except as concepts in your philosophy."

There is no "Atom" of Simplicity. And no "Atom" of Complexity.
Your words for your concepts will do.
It's your conceptual construct I'm not buying, not the words you use.

This is like someone saying to a Hindu, "I don't believe in Vishnu and Shiva."
And the Hindu answering, "What names of Vishnu and Shiva do you believe in?"

Perhaps it's because so many times in these pages, I have listened and tried to understand your basic ideas and sometimes successfully put them in my own words. And explored what you say without a blanket dismissal.
So maybe it seems now I'm just quibbling about words.

But here, something in the Ethical context:
In America we are always struggling with the rights of individual persons vs. the rights of the community.
Some of us put the priority on Individuality. Some on Community.
You rightly assert that we must recognize a dynamic between those two poles.

But it's not that Community exists as an "atom" of itself, or that Individuality exists as an "atom' of itself. These are linguistic abstractions.
The dynamic in the real world is that communities don't exist without individual persons and individual persons don't exist without community.
Psych-socially speaking individual personhood and community are inseparable.

So we realize it's not a war between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community, but a quest to integrate and advance the rights that inseparably serve both the individual for the sake of the community and the community for the sake of the individual.

Where do we begin? With you and me in community, not with abstract independent "atoms" of "Community" and "Individuality."
The organic nature of this dynamic is that the rights and needs of the community and of individual interpenetrate and are found within each other.
It is a much more intimate relationship than a logic table of the possible combos of the abstract concepts of Community and Individuality.

And this is just an example of a dynamic where there are two sets of concerns to be juggled. Life has more messy situations all the time.

You are asking how can we "complement" all these issues to insure our survival?
I'm saying that closer to the core of our survival is recognizing how life's issues interpenetrate and integrate.
And such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.
 
Apathia this is a beautiful post.

Let me correct some of your interpretations of OM.

There is no such a thing like "atom" for Simplicity and "atom" for Complexity in OM.

There are opposite atomic aspects (Non-local or Local) that enable Complexity as a result of the linkage between them, such that the identity of the opposite atomic aspects is saved during linkage exactly because they are derived form atomic self state, which enables them to be linked without contradicting each others identities.

According to OM's view Complexity is possible exactly because it is a manifestation of a non-destructive linkage between opposites (where under non-destructive linkage between opposites the identities of the opposites are not eliminated, otherwise there cannot be any complex phenomenon, abstract or not).

You still miss the exact nature of this linkage, where two opposites are not only independent, but they are mutually independent of each other, where mutuality is their common atomic self-state and their independency is their unique identities as opposites.

OM is not less than the common and the unique as a one realm.

Community or some individual of that community are already complex phenomena (a community is based on persons, and a person is based on his biological complexity) so OM asks: What enables Complexity in any given scale level, whether it is at the level of civilizations or at the level of a single hydrogen atom.

These notions are derived from direct perception, which is a pre-linguistic state that enables language, but I explicitly said that silence is not the word (or thought) "silence", and this distinction is essential of OM's understanding.

Please read very carefully http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP and try to get the core (the direct perception state).

As long as you omit direct perception as OM's main principle, you don't get OM.

To be interpenetrated and integrated is already a state of Complexity, but OM goes deeper in order to find the foundations of Complexity.

You claim that such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

Ethical concepts are also a form of Complexity and so is Math and Logics.

OM is a tool that is used in order to fundamentally get Complexity, and it is done by direct perception, which again, it is a pre-linguistic state that enables any mental expression, whether it is Empathy or Logical analysis.

By OM heart and head are a one organic complex thing.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to start charging it for each use of my name.

I'd let it ride, but it is so proud of its ignorance. Some things should not stand.
 
Complexity said:
I'm going to start charging it for each use of my name.

I'd let it ride, but it is so proud of its ignorance. Some things should not stand.
Click to expand...

Get a trade mark on it as George Lucus did with "droid."
Because of that if I ever try to publish a novel I wrote, I'm going to have to go through it and substitute some other word to avoid a copywrite violation.
 
doronshadmi said:
Apathia this is a beautiful post.

Let me correct some of your interpretations of OM.

There is no such a thing like "atom" for Simplicity and "atom" for Complexity in OM.

There are opposite atomic aspects (Non-local or Local) that enable Complexity as a result of the linkage between them, such that the identity of the opposite atomic aspects is saved during linkage exactly because they are derived form atomic self state, which enables them to be linked without contradicting each others identities.

According to OM's view Complexity is possible exactly because it is a manifestation of a non-destructive linkage between opposites (where under non-destructive linkage between opposites the identities of the opposites are not eliminated, otherwise there cannot be any complex phenomenon, abstract or not).

You still miss the exact nature of this linkage, where two opposites are not only independent, but they are mutually independent of each other, where mutuality is their common atomic self-state and their independency is their unique identities as opposites.

OM is not less than the common and the unique as a one realm.

Community or some individual of that community are already complex phenomena (a community is based on persons, and a person is based on his biological complexity) so OM asks: What enables Complexity in any given scale level, whether it is at the level of civilizations or at the level of a single hydrogen atom.

These notions are derived from direct perception, which is a pre-linguistic state that enables language, but I explicitly said that silence is not the word (or thought) "silence", and this distinction is essential of OM's understanding.

Please read very carefully http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP and try to get the core (the direct perception state).

As long as you omit direct perception as OM's main principle, you don't get OM.

To be interpenetrated and integrated is already a state of Complexity, but OM goes deeper in order to find the foundations of Complexity.

You claim that such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

Ethical concepts are also a form of Complexity and so is Math and Logics.

OM is a tool that is used in order to fundamentally get Complexity, and it is done by direct perception, which again, it is a pre-linguistic state that enables any mental expression, whether it is Empathy or Logical analysis.

By OM heart and head are a one organic complex thing.
Click to expand...

Boldings mine.
Pardon but it seems you just reassert that Complexity and Simplicity are mutually idependent ontological entities.

Here's the gist of our difference:
I'm saying that nothing has an independent, inherent existance, identity, or essence of its own. But we can still make conventional distinctions while realizing that in essence (or metaphysically speaking) all is of one seam of no-identity.

It seems to me that your X/Y Complementary approach is intuitive to you, so you declare it a matter of "direct perception."
People who don't get it then must be counted as lacking an essential awareness.

Yet. there are people (myself included) whose "direct perception" is that all things and concepts are empty of ontological or metaphysical reality.

But apart from all that, I'd be happy for you to see that there are ethical ways of seeing that differ from your particular construction.
Fortunately Humans will be compassionate apart from their metaphysical beliefs.
That's where my hope for our kind is. Not that we can somehow be persuaded to all adopt the same philosophy or religion.

I'm happy with people carrying on with their personal philosophies and religions if those are their personal instruments of heart opening and spiritual intimacy.
But it is sad when a religion or a philosophy becomes a windowless room where one retreats to an ideology without making soul connections.
(I know this pathology well, because I've had so many episodes of being in my "head" with a closed heart.)
 
Apathia said:
Pardon but it seems you just reassert that Complexity and Simplicity are mutually idependent ontological entities.
Click to expand...

No, I asserted that Complexity is the result of the mutual independency of the Local with the Non-local because on one hand the Local or the Non-local are derived from the same atomic self-state, but on the other hand they have opposite identities that are kept during linkage.

Without sameness and difference in a one realm, there is no Complexity.

Apathia said:
I'm saying that nothing has an independent, inherent existance, identity, or essence of its own.
Click to expand...
In that case there is only sameness and Complexity cannot be found.

If there is only difference, then also in this case Complexity cannot be found, because each identity is totally isolated.

Again, OM is not less than Mutual Independency.

Apathia said:
Yet. there are people (myself included) whose "direct perception" is that all things and concepts are empty of ontological or metaphysical reality.
Click to expand...
In that case you do not exist in any form and can't express what is quoted above.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, I asserted that Complexity is the result of the mutual independency of the Local with the Non-local because on one hand the Local or the Non-local are derived from the same atomic self-state, but on the other hand they have opposite identities that are kept during linkage.

Without sameness and difference in a one realm, there is no Complexity.


In that case there is only sameness and Complexity cannot be found.

If there is only difference, then also in this case Complexity cannot be found, because each identity is totally isolated.

Again, OM is not less than Mutual Independency.


In that case you do not exist in any form and can't express what is quoted above.
Click to expand...

Emperically speaking: a world of varied forms.
Metaphysically speaking: no inherent essence.

Because there no fixed ontological essences (or Platonic forms) change is is possible and the norm. Plenty of complexity for all.
I do exist as a changing form in appearance. But not as an ontological or metaphysical being.
My I is not a metaphysical soul.

You and I are of an integral whole and at the same time are seperate forms.

In human languages we have words of discription such as "difference" and "sameness."
It does not follow that these are metaphysical principles that in cahoots account for the same and the different.
The simpler observation behind sameness and difference is merely contrast. And that's an observation not an ontological principle.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
Emperically speaking: a world of varied forms.
Metaphysically speaking: no inherent essence.
Click to expand...
By OM, any form of speaking is derived from direct perception.

Apathia said:
Because there no fixed ontological essences (or Platonic forms) change is is possible and the norm. Plenty of complexity for all.
Click to expand...
There are no platonic forms at the level of the atomic self state.

The manifestation of the atomic state is not characterized by platonic forms, but by at least two opposite identities, that if linked, are resulted by "Plenty of complexity for all" whether it is an hydrogen atom or some civilization (where complexity is abstract or not).

Apathia said:
I do exist as a changing form in appearance. But not as an ontological or metaphysical being. My I is not a metaphysical soul.
Click to expand...
Call it whatever you like, you are the result form/change linkage, where form is derived from stability and change is derived from dynamics.

Apathia said:
You and I are of an integral whole and at the same time are seperate forms.
Click to expand...
Because we are a linkage between opposites (whole/separate linkage, in this case).

Apathia said:
In human languages we have words of discription such as "difference" and "sameness." It does not follow that these are metaphysical principles that in cahoots account for the same and the different.
Click to expand...
Again, silence is not "silence" by direct perception.

Apathia said:
The simpler observation behind sameness and difference is merely contrast. And that's an observation not an ontological principle.
Click to expand...
By direct perception Complexity is at least Participation/Observation Linkage, where a complex that is aware of Complexity, does its best in order to develop both its Qualitative\Quantitative aspects.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

By you there is only change (nothing is fixed) (the Buddhist approach).

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

OM is the non-trivial linkage (derived from direct perception) between your extreme views, such that a finite complexity is summed and an infinite complexity is fogged.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By OM, any form of speaking is derived from direct perception.


There are no platonic forms at the level of the atomic self state.

The manifestation of the atomic state is not characterized by platonic forms, but by at least two opposite identities, that if linked, are resulted by "Plenty of complexity for all" whether it is an hydrogen atom or some civilization (where complexity is abstract or not).


Call it whatever you like, you are the result form/change linkage, where form is derived from stability and change is derived from dynamics.


Because we are a linkage between opposites (whole/separate linkage, in this case).


Again, silence is not "silence" by direct perception.


By direct perception Complexity is at least Participation/Observation Linkage, where a complex that is aware of Complexity, does its best in order to develop both its Qualitative\Quantitative aspects.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

By you there is only change (nothing is fixed) (the Buddhist approach).

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

OM is the non-trivial linkage (derived from direct perception) between your extreme views, such that a finite complexity is summed and an infinite complexity is fogged.
Click to expand...

I mentioned platonic forms, but I do understand that your metaphysical identities are not the same as Plato's Ideal forms.

You are correct about me and the Buddhist approach.
But I'm not seeing that The Man has some kind of opposite extream view to mine. That would be something like everything is fixed in its true nature and change is just an illusion.
I don't know what his prefered philosophical stance is.

I've said that treating infinity as a complete is more comapatble with the Buddhist perspective, for in the Buddhist perspective infinity is not a metaphysical entity and finding that the finite is within the infinite and the infinite within the finite is almost expected.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.
Click to expand...

I would say that's the function of most philosophical wisdom. The goal is to live in awareness, responsibility, and compassion for others.

I saw a little girl riding a bicycle yesterday. She still had the training wheels on it, but I could tell that she was ready for her father to take them off.
 
doronshadmi said:
1) OM is a tool (very preliminary at this stage) and not a goal.
Click to expand...

A tool that “is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other”. You do understand that tools have intended uses and are designed with consideration of the goals in their usage, don’t you? Well thank you for finally admitting that since your “OM” has no or is not “a goal” that you intended it to be useless. Guess what, you succeeded.

doronshadmi said:
2) This tool is focused on the ability to define the linkage between opposites without arriving to contradiction (mutual destruction).
Click to expand...

Your “tool” has failed as it results in and is based upon a direct contradiction. You do understand that “opposites” are already ‘linked’ in a non-contradictory fashion by merely being, well, opposites, don’t you?

doronshadmi said:
3) Some results of such a linkage are known as heart-properties known as empathy, compassion, Love, Tolerance, Humor, and more, which are developed exactly because they are derived from a non-trivial communication between opposites.
Click to expand...

“communication between opposites”? Just how do you imagine these “opposites” ‘communicate’?

doronshadmi said:
4) Binary Logics, which its consistency is valued by avoiding mutual destruction between opposite, has no communication abilities between opposites, because according to Binary Logics the middle is excluded, and as a result there is no such thing like opposites' communication under Binary Logics.
Click to expand...

“mutual destruction between opposite”? How is that ‘avoided’ in binary logic when True AND False is False. Just what do you think is “opposites' communication”



doronshadmi said:
5) Most of our technologies for the past 600 years are derived from Binary Logics, which is a framework that has no ability to communicate between opposites; exactly because by Binary Logics the middle is excluded (we are using a black\white framework that, also according to The Man, "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.")
Click to expand...

Where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."? It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to. You still seem to be confusing (again I think deliberately) simple binary logic with some form of ethics.

doronshadmi said:
6) In my opinion it is about time to be developed beyond Binary Logics as the main tool of our current technological developments, where OM is a preliminary work in that direction, which is focused on the technology of the consciousness that may lead us to develop the linkage (the development of the communication) between opposites in non-destructive ways.
Click to expand...

In my opinion you should actually try studying logic. “technology of the consciousness”? Got any examples of such technology or are you just “focused on” something you made up in your own mind? Again just how do “opposites” ‘communicate’ ? You seem to be simply anthropomorphizing aspects of logic like opposites.


doronshadmi said:
7) One of the result of such a linkage (the development of the communication) is non-local numbers or fogs, which are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local or the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local, exactly because the opposites known as Non-locality or Locality saves their self properties (their independent identities) through the linkage.
Click to expand...

So you think “opposites” are ‘communicating’ to you or with you (as some included middle I surmise) thorough your “direct perception” and feeding you your “non-local numbers or fogs” nonsense? If that is the case I would add you getting a shrink to my suggestions.


doronshadmi said:
8) Furthermore, concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc. are OM's fundaments and are not considered anymore as "white noise" that has to be eliminated in order to get some fixed results (like sums, for example).
Click to expand...

Certainly “Redundancy” and/or “Simultaneity” has no bearing on a “fixed results (like sums…”, but “Uncertainty” certainly can and that simply makes the resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty. The “white noise" still remains simply and entirely yours Doron. Again your own personal uncertainty or “fog” does not imbue mathematics with your same “fog” (particularly about “concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc.”)



doronshadmi said:
Since they are our agents, they also reflects our ethical skills.
Click to expand...

So now computers have “ethical skills”? You obviously still do not understand why computers are not tasked with making ethical determinations.



doronshadmi said:
The Man instead of being my shrink, please simply answer to my question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction?]
Click to expand...

The suggestions have already been given to you, whether you have a shrink or not I still recommend them. Also as I said above I would recommend you getting a shrink if you think opposites are ‘communicating’ and in particular if you think they are ‘communicating’ to or with you.


doronshadmi said:
Done all along the way, and exactly because of this intensive study I have found that OM's development or any other tool that is developed beyond excluded middle "communication" between opposites, is one of the most important projects that have to be done in these days.
Click to expand...

Go back and do it again as you have obviously missed or simply misunderstood majoer portions, concepts and developments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom