Form: Outline

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

(outline of class 003)

(HISTORY)

There is a difference between ‘wisdom’ literature, legal literature, and scientific literature. And it’s in the method that they’re argued.

TRADITIONS

Western Philosophy (reason and measurement)

Early:

… Martial Cult of Sovereignty: (upper class)

… IE Polytheism and Nature Worship. (not sure it’s shamanism)

Middle;

… Aristotle (law, reason, measurement, aristocratic/martial class)

… Plato (idealism, rationalism) Middle Bureaucratic Class

… Epicurious, Stoics, etc – various middle classes

… Aquinas ( supernaturalism, conflation) Lower Classes

Late:

… Martial Cult (upper) (administrative)

… Rational Philosophy, Empiricism, and Law (middle/upper middle)

… … bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson/ menger/darwin/maxwell etc (commercial)

… Christianity (working and lower)(public)

… Pagan fables, myths and Rituals (hearth and home)

NOTE ON CLASSES

We tend to think of classes as a pyramid, but this isn’t quite true. As Ill explain later on, The classes that employ force, trade, and gossip, compete with one another, and dominate during different periods of any civilization, and under different conditions in any civilization.

It just so happens that in most civilizations the people who rule in practice are the miiltary and judicial and hold the most power, the people who organize production and trade at all levels the next, and the people who ‘gossip’ the least. conversely, there are more people who use gossip, fewer who organize, and fewer who fight and rule.

However, I often refer to classes as martial force, commercial trade, and priestly or public intellectual gossip. But I will cover class cooperation in depth as we go forward. Even though I realize that it might be confusing which ‘class’ context I am using at any given time.

EASTERN

Eastern ( ‘reasonableness’ and contrast)

… Sun Tzu (aristocratic / martial class)

… Confucius (middle/bureacratic class)

… Lao Tzu (lower/farming class)

(Note the difference between western low context-high precision linguistic syllogism, and eastern hgh context-lowe precision linguistic ‘riddles’ or contrasts.)

MIDDLE EASTERN

Middle Eastern (supernatural wisdom literature, and compliance)

… Early(Advanced Shamanism)

… … Egyptian Mythical (mythic literature) (unknown authors)

… … Hinduism (vedas, classes) (all classes)

… Upper

… … Martial Cult? ( shamanic? I don’t know)

… Upper Middle / Bureaucratic

… … Iranian / Zoroaster / Zarathustra (authoritarian supernatural scripture)

… …(Upper middle, Middle class snuffed after Cyrus/Darius/Darius)

… Lower Class

… …Semitism/Abrahamism (slave and lower classes)

… … … Abraham (Separatist)

… … … Paul/Saul (feminine)

… … … Muhammed (masculine)

So, we tend to use our western word “philosophy”, and lump together different kinds of wisdom literature, historical and legal literature, and scientific literature into the same camps.

But western and eastern literature differ dramatically from middle eastern literature which claims other-worldly authority; eastern literature that claims hierarchical authority; and wetsern literature that claims *market authority*. But to explain that difference is going to take a bit of work for you and I.

(NOUNS)

WHATS IN A NAME

(…. on naming… how can we name something… a referent )

(DEFINITIONS: VERBS)

BUT … WESTERN PHILOSOPHY?

Originally? The sum of knowledge within a domain.

But why would you need knowledge?

a) Action (preference, personal)

b) Persuasion ( cooperation, interpersonal )

c) Decidability ( conflict resolution, between any and all )

Philosophy: the search for methods of action, persuasion, and decision in a given domain of inquiry.

(TESTS: EQUALITY OPERATORS)

AND TRUTH?

And why would we need Truth?

The search for methods of decidability regardless of domain of inquiry, regardless of preference(action) or utility (persuasion, cooperation).

(…Elaborate on parsimony and precision…)

As such there exist many philosophies Utilitarian in context, but only one Truth (decidability) regardless of context.

True enough for the consequences:

TRUTH (TRUE), VS TRUE ENOUGH

a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

b) True enough for me to feel good about myself.

c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

g) True regardless of all opinions or preferences.

h) Tautologically true: in that the two things are indifferent in properties, operations, and relations

Which gives us:.

Philosophy and True-enough within a domain: opportunities.

Law and True, regardless of domain: decidabilities.

(COMPARISON OPERATORS)

Methods of Communication:

RECIPES(FORMULAE), LITERATURE (STORIES), LIES(FICTIONS)

a) actions and therefore transformations

b) causations and therefore opportunities.

c) deceptions and therefore coercions.

Methods of comparison:

IDEALS, GOLDEN MEAN’S, SERIES, TRIANGLES (curves)

a) Categories, sterotypes, ideal types. (categories)

b) Golden mean (comparisons / valuations)

c) Series (exhaustive deconflations).

d) Equilibria. In human terms: Triangles (supply vs demand)

e) Models / Simulations (sets of equilibria)

f) The Universe as it Exists (all equilibrial forces)

TRIANGLES

A Note on the use of Triangles, lines, types.

Descartes made good use of the graph, and Gauss has made good use of the bell curve – a normal distribution. And cournot and marshall made good use of the supply and demand curve. These tools help us visualize aggregates – lots of stuff – in simple terms.

I’m going to use a lot of defintions (points), spectra (lines), and triangles (equilibria), and only resort to supply and demand curves when I have no other choice.

Why?

Well, 1) first, because it’s pretty simple to visualize. and by using a definition(point), spectra(line), triangle (area) I can help cue (suggest or train) you in which tool to use when making your arguments. this helps make a visual association – a symbol for the different processes.

2) But second, and more importantly, as luck would have it, because there are only three methods of influence, persuasion, and coercion available to human beings. Only three reproductive strategies available to human beings, that correspond to those methods of influence, persuasion, and coercion. And so it just turns out that we can illustrate almost all human behavior using those three relationships.

And third, 3) because the triangle helps us visualize the equilibrium between these forces.

Does that mean I won’t show you supply demand curves, or even more complex forms of causal relationships? No. I will show you those tools. But only in the context of trying to understand how complexity increases and how we can understand complexity. We won’t do any math. I will just use the basic properties of math (measurement) to explain certain topics to you.

So we are going to use definitions, series, and triangles as means of esuring against our tendency to oversimplify (generarlize and eliminate information), deduce from (expand our error) and draw conclusions (amplify our errors). Which is fine if we are searching for ideas, but terrible if we are trying to test our ideas.

Now, onto those three methods:

(COOPERATION, PERSUASION, COERCION)

The Methods of Cooperation and Coercion:

Cooperative Triangle

a) protect vs prey or punish,

b) cooperate vs steal or free ride

a) create opportunity vs deny opportunity

Persuasive (Coercive) Triangle

a) violence: order(safety) / punishment

b) remuneration: exchange / payment

c) gossip: advocating / ridiculing

Decisive Triangle

a) …. error truth lie?

gainloss???? wat’s in here?

The Problems of scale:

Center Spectrum: Man as his own measure

a) below human scale – analogies to perception – expanding

b) within human scale – within our perception – relatively static

c) above human scale – analogies to perception – expanding

Center Spectrum: Man as the Measure – his limits

a) The universe (limits of possibility)

b) Man (limits of man’s actions)

c) Imagination ( limits of imagination)

(TESTIMONY / COMMUNICATION )

The Spectrum of Information:

Center Spectrum Triangle:

a) decidable (negative)(necessity

b) informative (neutral)(existential)

c) choice (positive)(preference)

Center Spectrum Series:

a) Science (external limits) (scientific/engeering/craftsmanly)

b) Law (reciprocal limits) (judicial/military/commercial)

c) Aesthetics (preferential limits) (priesthood)

Deflationary Center Spectrum:

a) Historical (Empirical, Descriptive, Existential)

b) Testimonial (Rational, Reciprocal, Cooperative)

c) Artistic (Literary/Artistic/Aesthetic, Preferable)

Methodological Center Spectrum:

a) Empirical (physical, scientific, engineered, descriptive, existential, correspondent )

b) Rational ( Legal, justificationary, non-contradictory)

c) Literary ( Imagined, narrated)

Truth Triangle

a) Measurement (physical) (possible) (measure reality)

b) Market (cooperative) (reciprocal) (measure other’s preference)

c) Preferential (‘increases in capital’) (measure personal preference. or what we call ‘value’)

False Triangle (Fictionalisms)

a) appeal to (incalculable) good ( moral fallacy ) (conflate calculable preference with incalculable good)

b) appeal to (fictional) order (ideal fallacy) naturalism(naturalistic fallacy)

c) appeal to authority (divine fallacy)

Fictionalisms are achieved by i) conflation, and ii) shifting (claiming coercive information that does not exist).

(GOVERNMENT)

Organizing Triangle:

a) CONFLATION AND MONOPOLY (STAGNATION) (old) (theocracy, bureaucracy, undecidability)

b) DEFLATION AND COMPETITION (INNOVATION) (growing) (market decidability)

c) COMMAND (TRANSFORMATION) (to deflationary)(behind) (fascism/generalship/authoritarian decidability)

Deflationary Triangle:

a) Nietzche: aesthetic restoration (Values)

b) Doolittle(and others): legal restoration

c) Many Scientists : scientific restoration

Property

Utility (market)

Possibility

WHAT HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED?

Well, what I hoped to accomplish is to define philosophy, define decidability, show the operations by which we communicate, and test our communications. And hopefully introduce you to definitions, sequences, and equilibria as means of testing communications (arguments) for their means of precision.