Showing posts with label navel-gazing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label navel-gazing. Show all posts

Sunday, January 17, 2016

PREMIER PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH PART 3: The Ethics of Bookshelves

RIGH TT TT NT TN NS SN

In the first place, what if a bookshelf is not supposed to bear much weight?

What if the whole object of a bookshelf is to not sustain beyond a certain number of pounds-per-inch?

In this case, the value of the bookshelf is its capacity for efficiency,

Or worse, emptiness.

This is similar to the architectural proviso of modernism,

the proviso for 'empty space, and nothing more!'

But this defies the purpose of a bookshelf, which is obviously to contain books.

Yet, the prescription is not one for heavy books specifically, unless the only goal is to physically
fill the bookshelf.

There must then be a spiritual prescription,

The prescription for appropriate literature.

But, if we said that the literature should be unseemly, steaming, or passionate,
that would defy the point of the ethical bookshelf in its specific mission.

One might say, perhaps the ethical bookshelf should contain only ethical books.

But, philosophically, ethical books raise a lot of questions about ethics that are
only ethical if they are answered satisfactorily.

So, in the sense of requiring ethical books, one should require ethical books of ANSWERS!

Yet, if ethical answers do, then one might as easily include answers of other kinds!

These other 'answer books' might provide answers on more practical subjects,
subjects that do not answer generally about all behavior, but instead give specifics
on how to act in certain cases, such as with carpentry or gluing.

But, now we are tempted to say that what is contained on the shelf is necessarily
non-fiction books, and the only criteria is that they provide 'answers'.

So, there should be some additional criteria which says that these books have some
special importance for the reader.

Either these books provide spiritual answers, or they provide just the right knowledge,
or they are books that for one reason or another are loved dearly.

There is then no definite criteria about the ethical bookshelf.

It is a shelf-of-books. It provides answers. Answers that are dearly loved.

Yet the books may be very light or very hefty.

They may be religious treatises or books about carpentry.

They may be picture books, novels, plays, cartoons, or summaries.

In short, anything may be required on the ethical bookshelf as long as it serves some purpose.

Specifically, the ethical purpose of the bookshelf is not even about whether the books are read.

They may serve an ethical purpose by being un-read, and therefore they may even be sinful books.

Or, they may be books that are referred to now-and-then. Aphorisms, precepts, and truisms.

The ethical bookshelf appears to be in one sense pragmatic, and in another sense illusory.

The books may be ephemera when the lesson is learned permanently, or when purposes are temporary.

The bookshelf becomes a particular place in the wilderness of civilization.

Particularly a place where the ethical purpose is manifest.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

PREMIER PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH PART 2
















One can picture a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System with a mote in the middle.

This becomes the basis for the form-human, with the mote raised to the head, and the axis-arms filling in the arms and legs of the human.

Now, the question is, what is another idea of a living species, for more dimensions? What is a form more perfect than the form-human?

I have some tentative answers and hints on this subject, even though I feel I have not conclusively solved the problem.

Clearly the nearest allegory to a simpler human occurs early in human gestation, with the contact between the semen and the egg. If there is no more conclusive hint about where our species is developing, then we might find clues in the semen and the egg, as to what species we become!

For example, a woman might become a planet, and a man might become a process. But, we are getting ahead of ourselves.

An initial formulation of the form-human in terms of the mote might be:

"Mote Opposite Mote Context" --- representing the head, arms, etc.

A development of the next form in the same number of dimensions might equal:

"History Infinity Immortality Form"

(Paradoxes solved by paroxysm:)

Divided world dysfunctional layers = binary self functioning inherently.

This might be a tentative ultimate boundary.

= power thrown at the world.
= causality alive.
= thinking the world.

Non-evolution of the body = evolving by death.

If we want to solve 'evolving by death' then we get 'Non-evolution of the body'. Or there is no paradox.

Desire?
Ghosts? >Just binary principles.

Body's desire for ghosts = death desireless for the body.

Machines?
Creative license? > Just binary principles.

Conscious machine creative license = unconscious plant / reality destroying the meaningless.

Plant?
Meaningless? > Just binary principles.

Meaningful plant, or:
Binary paradox = division, no paradox.

Cleavage?
Universe? > New paradigm? (Become a woman?)

Cleavage universe un-dimensional = undivided multiverse, dimensional.

Multiverse body = universal mind.
Crude reality = refined fantasy.
Double development = divided ends.
Less motion = more dimension.

So, there may be several options:

1. Ghost vs. Desire.
2. Machine vs. Creative license.
3. Organic vs. Meaningless.
4. Cleavage vs. Universe.
5. Multiverse (woman and/ or organic and/ or machine and/ or ghost and/ or some other module)

That's about the biggest clue I have about the 4th - 7.5th dimension for now, in terms of entities.

Maybe some underlying obsession will take over.

Best candidates are logic and sex, machines and paradise.