Monday, July 6, 2015


The area spanned by these contents is broad. It follows a pattern of delineation, from concepts of macro-reality, to concepts of meta-critique, to concepts of critique, and finally, concepts of conflict-resolution. It is possible that this writing is one of my most signfiicant works, apart from the technical adumbration of the contents of art, philosophy, etc. as disciplines. This is a discipline-shattering work that appropriately focuses on philosophy. If Nietzsche philosophized with a hammer, I am the madman who looked at the pieces.

Semantic problems are full of solutions. Either something is suited to semantics and is not semantical, or it is semantic, and is solved by not being semantical. In either case, a solution presents itself!

What is not formal is not final. But this does not pose any psychological difficulty. We are not encumbered by problems simply because we are given intellectual freedom. In this sense of semantics, problems are trivial.

Barriers might exist that are part of the navigation of a problem. Posing the theory of a problem provides a means of navigation. In this sense, problems are solutions.

Paradox and absoluteness are not opposites, but they define the gamut between extremes. Extremism is not a broken concept. Extremity or exponency is a great way of expanding the value of an idea, usually with paradox, absoluteness, completeness, or exceptionalism.

Mathematics is not a first-go. It's a crutch. Mathematics relies on many assumptions or 'narrow-nesses of vision' which a philosopher would not stomach. In the best sense of mathematics, it is only a tool. But, as a tool, there are things which it cannot say, particularly if what math IS does not express qualities. Based on this, I conclude that math is merely a formalism, and as a formalism, it may be abandoned if it is not a suitable metaphor.

We are free to abandon any formalism that is not a suitable metaphor. For formalism which is not a metaphor does not have utilitarian relevance. But we are still free to find irrational metaphors, and through that method, many formalisms may be adequate. One conclusion may be that most formalisms are irrational.

Symbolism concerns at least four things: (1) The mode of the ideal self, (2) The completeness of the world, (3) Significant relationships, (4) The map of reality, functional or otherwise.

Materialism IS the dialectic. For most purposes, spiritualism is BEYOND dialectic.

Extreme ideas, not just extremism, defines the potential of significant materials.

Paradoxes are not problems, or not exactly. They are not literally 'problems'. And so, they might be solutions.

Functionality is the metaphor for every type of solution. Anything that serves to answer something involves some type of functionality. And discovering what type of functionality that is can produce new theories.

Any given high-minded theory, such as a functional summation, is beyond most things. Predicting that a pattern becomes a theory before it becomes something beyond a theory can help to develop the future relevance of an idea.

If it is not some specific claim instead, then relevance is by and large what an identity or relationship refers to, before any genuine rational theory can be developed about it.

The ideal sense of reason circumvents the assumption of un-reason and irrationality. This is how symbols are developed.

Irrationality is not just a mathematical concept. It is a formal one. Irrationality poses the strongest potential of granting coherency to the general concept of 'reason'.

---Nathan Coppedge, July 4th, 2015.

No comments: