Empirical Consolation

Continuing the subject of what I call pseudoscience;

A class text discusses the development of empiricism from Locke, to Berkeley, and Hume, (and the Logical Positivists, who I will ignore for now); Evidently according to the text, Kant's morality is the only major rebuttal to what are otherwise sound arguments; For example, Hume's fork (the choice between synthetic and analytic statements, or else nonsense) has been used to deconstruct the concept of god into a hypothetical condition that is at best neither real nor unreal without evidence (Catholics argue that the world itself is evidence, whereas others respond that the world is not proof evidence of what the Catholics claim; and what is evidence without proof? It is not evidence at all);

Nonetheless, to an irrationalist such as myself, who believes that some very exceptional truths influence truth-statements, and even that no exceptional reason is ordinary, the empirical claim does not look like consolation, it just looks like a way of being lazy; What are scientists doing engaging in science without very unusual hypotheses organized in sets and rows to compensate for the mundanity of testing procedures? Some would say that the excitement of science has only begun, or that it has always been present; And as a result, I have been persuaded to attempt writings about biology and psychology, which I plan to eventually self-publish.

What is the conventional consolation of empiricism? Perhaps there isn't one; Old writings are full of stories of how dark and cold or behaviorist science is or has become; So we can scarcely say that, from that plateau, the new trend is 'futurism'? Can we? What is advanced except an idea? So at what point do scientific ideas become concrete? From an onlookers vantage point it may appear that only the most advanced developments have intellectual cachet, and even so, only ephemerally; What does this say about the consolation of empiricism?; Is the value merely a scientific routine?

Evidence of Hyper-Cubism

I found a video that shows some evidence of Hyper-Cubism. In some ways its more advanced than my work. But its sort of evil looking. But it is available for free. To compare with the Hyper-Cubic car and my galleries (or my actual art, if you are an owner):
http://vimeo.com/49636181

Categorical Desire

Continuing the topics based on pseudoscience idea.

What constitutes rationalism about the irrational? Or are the emotions irrational after all? The term "categorical" may be seen as relating to an entic (entity) context, whereas the term "desire" suggests vectors of some sort of property, perhaps psychological; That makes the metaphysics of the situation look a little dubious: where is this entity? On what grounds does it seek pleasure or satisfaction? What after all, is categorical desire?

Desire, in a categorical sense, may be a desire for the inwardness or outwardness of an entity; Someone may confuse an aspect of self for an aspect of judging the world; For example, what seems interesting may be concocted only by associations which relate to memory and prior experience; What seems doubtful relates especially to conditioned responses that have more to do with the past than the future; So what, if any concept remains if we de-psychologize the context?

A simple answer may come from synthetic concepts of self: e.g. what is the intrinsic program which we associate with the deepest aspects of ourself? How is this contingent upon aspects like survival and mood/affect? Categorical desire begins to look like a simple interaction between the simple desires of the inner self and the complex demands of the outer world;

Colloquium Consciousness

I would collect a series of these posts on pseudoscience if I had such a number of ideas in the same category. Perhaps gradually.

But what this idea amounts to is that the Greeks during the Socratic period were an experiment with consciousness. What I call "colloquium consciousness". Part of an index of prospective ideas. By God or government, or if you believe the idealists, the intrinsic nature of the human mind.

Anyway, it seems that this idea was the basis for what we now know as democracy. It brings into question what other ideas might be tentative to the great powers. And what has been suppressed---under my assumptions---by suppressing consciousness?

Perhaps consciousness is the only key to a golden age, and democracy has become the ambiguous turning coin of economics, while meanwhile no economy may be necessary to the conscious developments of a period in which there are "conscious investments".

But some would say this is "poofy smoke tricks". Of course we believe in economics.

But what if economics is ultimately a footnote to colloquium consciousness, by virtue of the influence of democracy? This would be interesting.

Join my twitter page

https://twitter.com/nathancoppedge

Authorhouse and Social Security: The Process for my Mind and Body?

I was looking over a horrible cartoon of Freud insulting women that was included in one of my assigned texts, and this piqued my interest on an abstract level because Freud is a potential subject for my potential book project, The Dimensional Psychologist's Toolkit (not to be confused with my other book, The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit); In short my reasoning followed a convoluted path:

1. If gender issues are comparable to the implicit concerns of any other cohort (say, one that does not feel affiliated with gender, but may be affiliated with an academic discipline that has been seen as predominantly male) then what are my implicit concerns, when I become a so-called cosmopolitan thinker, who has multiple  key areas of interest?

2. Say that there is an inherent insult/ and also an insight for every key discipline, or even every cosmopolitan 'disciplain' or preferred comfort area for an entity, which may span multiple disciplines, in the way architects are often strong theorists on pragmatic issues; Then, what is the dual-, tri-, or quadra- partite division of my own cosmopolitan insult as a supposed cosmopolitan thinker?

3. Resolving these issues could resolve some aspect of what may otherwise be a conflicted identity, or a misguided purpose, the idea that cosmopolitanism is not prone to errors or pitfalls.

4. So my key problems, I realized, are 'problemations', realizations of problems-and-answers in one unit. In this sense, according to an earlier thesis, cosmopolitanism is an optimal approach, but in the new theory its realization is (suitably or unsuitably) ironic. In short, Authorhouse, a self-publishing company, has become my mental resource, and Social Security, a government charity organization, has become the surrogate for my body.

5. What can I conclude then except some pitiful denomination of 'this is what I receive for being so low in life'? What is the subtle, legitimate foothold I have for profound science or fiction?

I've added a few books

to my Amazon author page: N. Coppedge's Author Page

On the Categorical Use of Color

I have developed a theory about color exclusivity to supplement the common aesthetic understanding of the colorwheel. I have used the common valuative (that is, black and white) schema as a diagonal comparison establishing a point of opposition. The mystery at this point is then, what supplements three colors, if three are established? My conclusion was that grey is not included in the set: instead, grey is already established as an amelioration between black and white, which occurs only at the focii (or through context, as a general term for value); Hence, the fourth color labeled in fourth box, once it is established that white (representing all the spectrum) must transform to black (representing none of the spectrum) must consist of transparency, some might conclude that there is no remaining room, and the group would constitute a trinity. However, grey is not the product of either black or white with transparency, so the answer is that some fourth color or value is missing from the quandary. My solution is that it is a colorless substance, an ambiguous color with all the subtlety and none of the properties of ordinary colors. See for example the following diagram:

I found the mathematical material on wikipedia on a related subject to be overly complex. Perhaps they have actually missed the exclusive value of colors in arriving at such a complex and laborious, and yet, in its details, quite simplistic (amalgamistic, and inevitably quantitative) concept. Here is a link to the mathematical article on the subject of colors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_polynomial

(I had originally thought that Mr. Birkhoff was a philosopher. I was mistaken. At least he was famous).

An Affirmation and Negatives

I have given thought recurrently to the value of fruit juice and vegetables.

My current diet is not meat-free, but I have cut down to oatmeal and bagels and tea part of the week.

I can't afford salads every day in my current programme of saving for another publishing package.

Thoughts on Modularity

I have been conceiving that some secret lies at the heart of modular thinking, this single theory that has been relegated often to a specialist's domain; hints of it are found in a variety of disciplines which require high degrees of problem solving, namely politics and social science, architecture, and mathematics; But let us suppose that the breadth of the subject includes also the areas which are nit-picky about the quality of thought as a phenomena separate from the solutions-mentality; What then occurs with the transgression of modularity as a concept that is merely scalar or a systemic designator for objects of construction or deliberation?; Perhaps Frege's qualities of connotation and denotation have a potential here, but the leap very often looks only like a variation on game theory, a sort of crass assumption that some tessellated substrate is useful for determinations about people, or multi-agent frameworks; To some degree such a thing may specify an economic theory, e.g. a 'hexagony' function would increase in iterations which increasingly overlap or paradoxically divide, providing a litmus for concepts of geometric systemization; Unless such a framework is useful, the inevitable conclusion is that it is un-interesting; One solution is to apply geometry as an iconic representation for an entire scene or deliberation, much in the way that hegemony seems to be a geometric representation of constituent parts, which may have some degree of economic, computational, or social function through degrees of equilibrium and any equivalent concept, however, it is not for us to assume that every system is so basic, nor indeed that hegemony itself consists of such a simplistic framework; One solution at this point is to return to basic functions and apply geometry with variability, for example, specifying that one function is equivalent to a complex polygon, and another is simple or axiometric; This has more potential for meaningful overlap, if only because a larger number of categories have been encompassed; It is as though geometry is not in this way as organizational as might be the case, suggesting either that the very limit of geometry has been reached, e.g. the typological nature of the second zero, the seeming contradiction between axiometry/ typology and planar variablism has produced a modality beyond the nature of conventional assumptions of the limitation of basic categorization; but another conclusion is that the sheer oppositeness of categories and the sheer limitation of dynamic relations with a few agent variables leaves the context with many limitations which do not compute on the level of a hegemony, or even a simple concept of economics; Maybe this is over-reaching, to say that the context is so limited, if the functions or categories have functional or categorical validity; Perhaps a nation could espouse some nature akin to an archetypal function represented by 'axis' or 'planarity' but this begins to look Cabbalistic at best; Do we always rely on obfuscations to convey a cogent and operative idea?; What if the very clever-most thing of a given project, operation, or corporation is always reducible to something very pithy and minute?; I would rather propose that in some unique cases the ultimate value---equatively---of a given project etc. is actually an integration with the background of complexity, and functional manifestation as its minimal representation. In this context, art---dimensionism---becomes figuratively useful when there is a valid system of interpretation; Simple art exists, and may be interpreted with ease by a complex system; The greatest potential, however, (at least as I see it, at this juncture, in human intellect, or what have you---computation) is the value of complex art to convey simple formulas which are conniving in their perfection; In this context meta-variables emerge represented by equivalences to valuating a field; Concepts like complexity and perfection serve as an ultimate substitute for what is, at the material level, consistently more complicated, yet distinctly specialized: systems-aesthetic, which in others' thoughts often remains an un-typologized mystery of arbitrary formulations and crude self-apparent references to mathematics, actually has a potential, in the context of exclusivity, to define a gamut between reductive function and singular valuation; This, what we have called beauty and effectiveness, is to some degree wholly graphical, a surface of a more sublime contingency only realized through the window of ersatz functionality;

The singular position that has been called a vortex is only a subtle contention with form::

--Nathan Coppedge

My Woodland Cafe exhibit

has been extended to Nov 15th, 2012.

"Hyper-Cubism"

It's located on Orange St. in New Haven.

Other Dimensional Toolkits

Prospectively, I've begun to consider writing other full-length texts along the themes of dimensionism and knowledge toolkits. As posted on my Amazon author profile, I've begun to write a Psychologist's Toolkit in an attempt to apply dimensional principles to a wider discipline. While some would call dimensional thought superficial by comparison to the deep thoughts of psychology and inter-personal dynamics, I have hopes that some of the gleanings about typology and knowledge may find a foundation in psychic and social-context studies as well. I have already designed the cover, but of course marketing this one without a PhD in psychology may be more hallucination than reality.

Other books in this series may follow, but for now it looks like the most interest has been attracted to the first of the series, The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit. It is not yet released, but is scheduled to be published in early 2013.

I've also had thoughts of writing a novel, but my instinct is that the longer I wait the better. It's already been seven years since I've written a quantity of poetry (with the exception of a number of sonnets that were casually formulated, each upon the last); they say the more distance between novels and poetry the better. My ambition, however, is to combine themes from both, by using aphorisms.

Rhetoric Against War: A Philosophical Argument

An extended argument based upon the concept of The End of War, a book by John Horgan. From what I can tell, he doesn't use a very rhetorical style, but I can take it on faith that there is some content that other books don't have---backbone, or fluency or something.


Metaphysics thrives on questions:
When there are many questions, metaphysics remains complex:
Metaphysics relies on complexity
When there is a simple answer to a metaphysical question, it concerns ethics
Any ethical answer necessarily eliminates the confusion of metaphysics
By eliminating the confusion it eliminates the complexity
So we can say,
Ethics is beyond metaphysics
All answers are therefore ethical
If an answer weren't ethical, it wouldn't be an answer
For example, we stipulate that usefulness is not enough for an answer:
It must relate to life, experience, and pragmatics
Further, a pragmatics that is not ethical-qua-pragmatic is not pragmatic
The minimal standard of ethics is that it provides solutions:
All answers are ethical
Then, let us say, that brutality of any kind is either a question or an answer
But it cannot be an answer, because answers are ethical
So brutality is either a metaphysical question or does not provide answers
Arguing that brutality is pragmatic is arguing that it provides answers
When the answers are not ethical, however,
In some sense they are not metaphysical:
Instead, they are problematic
Then it may be argued that war is inherently problematic, but provides answers
Or it does not provide answers
In either case there is a problem with pragmatics,
Either by creating problems or by not solving them
Evidently conflict is a pragmatics that is un-pragmatic
Otherwise, we can argue that creating problems is pragmatic,
But if these are amongst the problems that are not solved,
Then clearly the fault is in the definition of "problem"
Evidently soldiers think that their circumstances are unavoidable,
Perhaps for pragmatic reasons
But as we have seen, there is not a strong pragmatic ground for this reassurance
So what they believe pares down to belief in the unavoidable
Any evidence to the contrary might be condemning evidence of other values
Their position is open to the critique of 'how could it be so'?
Evidently to them it appears as a form of justice
But if that justice is inevitable, it is not even willful justice
It is a belief in pure emotional value
Evidently soldiers depend on an emotional argument
when the context is sheerly un-emotional
Or there is a material question, that the soldiers merely prefer everything
that is true about their circumstance
This returns to the question or belief in answers
Which as I have argued, must be ethical in order to move beyond metaphysics
So what soldiers argue is that war is metaphysical
Yet, deconstructing war, it is always seen as a material exercise
[We need not cite the evidence that war destroys the soul:
It results in a view that there is no soul, to defend a meaningless position]
When metaphysics is the answer to war,
Surely the soldiers would prefer intellectualism or some more spiritual form of inner questioning
If that is the case, it is no longer true that war poses a solution to a problem
Not even in the form of metaphysical questioning

---Nathan Coppedge