An Attempt to Summarize My Most Enlightened Knowledge
I. 1-Degree Absolute Knowledge
Categorical deduction is a method I invented for formulating coherent knowledge using an n-dimensional typology. For most purposes it only operates in four square categories ('quadra') lying inside a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System ('axes').
Deductions are produced when opposite terms or labels, each being of any length, and occupying separate boxes, are arranged to form statements that are said to express all the data that could be expressed----because the words are analogous to everything contained by the concepts.
The words must be opposites opposed along the diagonal, and arranged with an order preference given to categories A and B, which are taken to be the subject of the individual analysis.
Coherent statements are then expressed as "AB:CD and AD:CB" in terms of A.
Since B and D are switched as part of the operation of the deduction, the preference of B over D is actually unnecessary, although the content is not arbitrary, as it expresses a certain relation of judgment axis B-D with judgment axis A-C.
Examples that don't work:
"Bad women make good men." You may think this is sound reasoning, but it does not logically follow, because if man is the opposite of woman, they cannot both be human. The opposite of human is at least not human.
Examples that do work:
However, you could argue bad is the opposite of good, and the opposite of love is hate, now you can conclude that "bad hate makes good love." That would be logically sound, because it serves as a definition, and we know that it is not contradictory. Of course, other types of exceptions still exist which restrain the ultimate significance both of good and bad, and of love and hate. The statement does not say that it is true in every possible way, but only that it is a logically true definition which measures the extent of validity for that exact case, insofar as the words are accurate representations. If we want it to be measurably true, and not just logically true, then we have to assume that the opposite properties are measurable. And, unless they are absolute, there is no way to be certain that the statement is coherent. However, using similar rules, we can make more complex statements that are equally valid, such as: "good problems with hate produce bad solutions in love." Although more entities are involved, the more complex statements do not have to assume the entities are real or measurable to be logically valid. The deductions also don't depend on the idea of cause and effect, hence the concept of 'non-causal inference'.
Consider the example of beauty versus ugliness, and a sensitive person versus a stoic. We don't argue that any of these entities or qualities don't exist for some person or other. Now, we can't compare opposites directly because that would create a contradiction. So, we compare non-opposites. There is no rule which says that stoics can't be ugly, or that sensitive people can't be beautiful or ugly, etc. In fact, the only thing that would contradict sensitivity is being stoical, and the only thing that would contradict beauty is ugliness. (The only exception to this is irrationality).
Now, we are not saying that stoic and sensitivity or beauty and ugliness cannot be compared to other things, so there is no contradiction is selecting something specific. At this point there is no contradiction. We are comparing non-opposites, because that is not contradictory. It is a possibility, so it can express something about the world. Since the concepts can be defined as the only words that represent the exact same concept, or the identical concepts are interchangeable and have only one opposite, therefore the comparison of non-opposites represents the only available knowledge on whatever topic the terms concern. Since it is the only available knowledge, it is the best knowledge, and where opposite terms are exclusive of all possible descriptions, it is also universal knowledge. Now it follows that 'a beautiful stoic is ugly sensitively' and, under different conditions, 'an ugly stoic is beauty-sensitive'. Otherwise, the terms are not opposites, or there is opportunity to resolve the contradiction often resulting in a simplification of categories, or there is a paradox or irrationality.
What is potentially unique about the system is not just its sense of double relativism which I call relative absoluteness, but the way it works across language, and for any extreme concept.
For assumptions of the system, SEE: Nathan Coppedge's answer to Can philosophy be axiomatized?
However, things like 'cat and dog' or 'man and woman' don't work except in what is called a 'modal sense'. The modal sense is the same sense as 'this lamp post to that street over there' --- it may not in fact be opposite. However, terms like cat and dog can be lumped into categories like animal and human, and opposites can be imagined for them, like 'dead human' and maybe 'nativity water' for 'alien flame' or the like. These sorts of concepts at least set up a relationship for logical comparison coherently, providing a meaningful standard for correspondence that was not previously imaginable outside of science fiction and Alien Phenomenology.
II. PAROXYSM
What is a solution to a paradox?If it has a solution, then it was not a paradox.
So, where did the problem come from in the first-place?
Apparently, there are two types of paradoxes, problematic ones and un-problematic ones.
But problematic ones must demonstrate something, if they can't be resolved.
Using this logic, I arrived at the idea that every paradox must also be a solution as well as a problem.
The solution to any paradox can be found by combining the opposites of EVERY word in the best definition of the problem in the same order.
But the solution is still a paradox, it just belongs to a different universe that we might think has ideal problems. In that world, solutions may be solved by problems!
III. Psychic Prediction
Psychic prediction may take several basic forms.
First I will describe the most basic types of prediction.
First of all, the most basic type is 0-dimensional prediction. This consists of predicting what has already occurred, that is, predicting the types of things that have already happened. A second degree of this is had by predicting things that are similar to those things that have happened. For our purposes, this can be called simple generalization. If Henrick usually wants to play games, perhaps he wants to play games now. This is the first dimension of prediction, and it is the type that gains most easily by probabilistic inductions. This method is also called specialized prediction when it is applied to specialized modes of behavior. For example, we can predict that a Matisse will sell high compared to an unknown artist. We know that popular items in an auction sell high, whereas unpopular items might not sell at all. Therefore, there is an exponential relationship for example, between selling a Matisse, and selling a Matisse at an auction. These kinds of things can be predicted by studying the specific character of the modalities and events involved in a given situation. However, if an event is instead informal or contrived, this lends an aspect of unpredictability. The predictions only work when all of the prior conditions are met, and become less predictable with every difference from the previous cases. Therefore, differences can be used to predict differences, as another type of specialized prediction. It may help to predict trickery or confusion (‘likely outcomes’), rather than predicting a specific event. It should be accepted that some conditions and choices are arbitrary. Because we do not know if conditions will be met to satisfaction, we know that some events are arbitrary. If the conditions are one half different, then prediction requires a strong degree of formalism, however that is calculated. It involves, in effect, exceeding expectations, or coming across an event that happened just in the same way, but as if by chance. This is one reason that scientists have been known to require the reproduction of laboratory conditions, even with highly predictable phenomena. Thus, specialized predictions have some limitations.
The next type is delineative or elaborative prediction. What it consists of is a generalization modified by additional imagination about the significance of the factors involved. This type of prediction can be called variablistic, because it often functions by applying a generalization to a deduction about a variable. If elephants are painted red, perhaps it is a sight for sore eyes, etc. One form of this is prediction through emergence. This is not necessarily a linear prediction because it essentially doesn’t predict based on existing data. Nor does it predict based on known exterior data. Instead, it involves a conclusion that something is missing from the data. Logical conclusions are drawn so that we can make major systemic conclusions about what the data means. The new theory appears as if from thin air. This is similar to the emergence of Darwinism, or the genetic explanation of reproduction. What determines the success of these theories is their relative importance, not necessarily the lack of any alternative. It is the importance of the theory----its emergence----which drives the prediction. (Many theories from social science involve emergent theories, such as socialism and capitalism. Instead of acting as a formal constraint, they often expand the way that the conditions function. In this case, the explanation is not erroneous, but instead, serves as a new rational mode of explanation).
A third type is contingent or categorical prediction. If something is the case, then we can predict that the things that rely upon this first condition are modified when that category is modified. This form of prediction works better for predicting quality differences than actually-different conditions. However, if multiple qualities are absent, predictions can be made about the alternatives. If there is no snow, it can be predicted that it is not cold, or there is a shortage of water, for instance. If it is not cold, one can predict that it is arid or moist. If there is a shortage of water, one can predict that it is dry, or there is a high tolerance for water. This can also take the form of complex categorization. Attaching variables to a given object means that predicting the outcome for the main object affects the outcome of some, if not all, of the variables. For example, ‘if we do something extreme, the change might be observable. Otherwise, it is an abstract or un-measurable form of extremity. We must have some means of observation, or we can usually conclude that the effects are not extreme. Or we can adopt an irrational view’.
A fourth type of prediction is coherent prediction. This is also called synergism or epiphany. The simplest form of coherent prediction occurs by the exclusion of all but one unlikely option. Hella spent a hot day in the desert, and she was outdoors, and walked several miles, time passed and she didn’t expire: she must have brought something to drink with her. A more complex form occurs by qualifying what it means to make a given combination. People who have complicit sex are always lovers. Therefore, if two people have sex, it might be complicit, and they might be lovers. Or, something is complicit between two people. If it is sex, they are lovers. This can even involve highly complex phenomena. For example: Joe defines himself as an editor, but he works as an economist. In some way he is doing economic editing. This is the beginning of a genuinely psychic method. Attaching judgments of fully embraced variables can be a meaningful way of reaching for epiphanies. For example, what ‘definitely IS something’ about a given thing? Then apply that condition to factors like responsibility, organization, and predictability. An exception to this is so-called ‘black swans’. In that case, one must predict the rationale which makes something a black swan. The rule in that case is that things are either unreasonable, reasonable, without purpose, or serving a prescribed function. A method for solving black swans involves corroboration or defaulting. This occurs when there is no better explanation remaining for a given thing. Well, we know that such-and-such a creature has eyes based on the related species, but nothing about the creature looks exactly like eyes. The eyes must be these spots on its back. Otherwise its blind. Or, black swans could exist, as long as we know that color serves no inherent function.
Now for more genuine psychic predictions:
A second genuine form of psychic prediction involves using a posteriori reasoning on a 0-dimensional prediction. For example, if we know that some events are arbitrary, then we can derive that we don’t know if some conditions will be met to satisfaction. If we know Henrick wants to play games now, we can predict that he usually wants to play games. This form of prediction often involves deducing the types of statements that lead to a particular line of reasoning: that is, predicting a rationale. Many psychics are familiar with this way of phrasing deductions.
A third form of genuine psychic prediction involves determination based on unstated facts. Since everyone thinks about the opposite of what they say, at least unconsciously, combining multiple opposite terms for terms that have been stated as someone’s opinion, or as the definition of a motive or interest for the person or organization, will give information about the genuine motivations, or else the looming unknowns in the life of the person or organization. For example, if someone states that the first thing on their mind is their motorcycle, and the second thing on their mind is their manhood, then you can predict that they’re concerned about meeting someone else on a motorcycle.
A fourth form of genuine psychic prediction involves categorical relationships. One can ask or predict ‘what is someone’s usual mode of relation with the world?’ Then one can predict that they use that mode of relation with their perceived opposites. For example, an artist who expresses that the thing on his mind is cars can be predicted ‘not to buy a painting of a car, instead you’ll make it yourself’ (the concealed opposition is between the artist who makes art, and his opposite, the buyer of the art. The opposite of making a painting of a car is buying a painting of a car). Similarly, if a business expresses itself as aggressive and competitive, but you think they’re liars, you can predict they’ll have contradictory marketing (‘competing truths’, since their mode of relation is competition, and their opposite is the truth).
A fifth form of genuine psychic prediction: take any number of factors describing a current event or situation you’re in, and reverse the factors that are different from the subject. This can be used to predict how someone is feeling, or what their core motivation are. For example, an artist is at a business convention. So they’re feeling unconventional, and they feel like making art, since that is not a different motive from business. Or, a philosophy society is at an art gallery. So, it thinks its popular art (‘society’ does not conflict with ‘gallery’), and it thinks its un-philosophical art, or tries to make connections between art and philosophy (‘philosophy’ is different from ‘art’ or it can be debated). Other conclusions might be that they think art is trying to commercialize philosophy, that philosophy ought to involve graphics, or to view art or philosophy as a socialist movement.
Those are the eight categories of prediction that I have determined. I hope this writing may be considered useful to my readers on this most often unrealized subject.
IV. THE SOULS OF LITERATURE
First Formula:
Soul of the book =
'If you [X] qualifier [subject of X and qualifier] [opp X clarified]'
Optionally, you can add a moral:
'The [subject of X alone] is [verb / adj. of opp qualifier]'.
Also, optionally,
Optional 2= '[A/the state / process from verb / adj.] of / is [property of qual. of X]'
Note: For this second part, it may help to refer to the title which
I will now provide, in order to find the opp qualifier before it is
modified.
Title of book =
Usually: '[quality of X] [opp of qualifier mentioned in the soul]'
For perusal, or quick use: '[opp qualifier] [quality of X]'
The easiest way to use the formula is to generate original souls
and then find the corresponding titles by finding the most
essential, knowledgeable quality of X and then finding the
opposite of the qualifier introduced in the soul of the book.
Together with the soul the title provides a basic index of the
value of any text, and permits exponentially efficient reading.
For example,
Soul = 'If you die early enough you live'.
Optional 1= 'Death is the aging process'.
Title of book = 'Bad Archaic'
Bad [= qual. of die] Archaic [=opp of early]
Another example chosen more arbitrarily,
Soul = 'If you live surely truth may die'
Optional 1= 'The life is uncertain'.
Title of book = 'Optimal Uncertainty'
Optimal [=qual. of live] Uncertainty [= opp of surely]
Second Formula:
What naturally follows from an earlier term, sometimes in unusual ways.
For example, "I need to pee" could be the soul of "Reigns of Fire", since "Reigns of Fire" might follow from "I need to pee".
Better titles are more clever and data-intensive, but highly predictable titles can be used for poor-quality literature.
At another level there is a difficulty here in predicting the bulk of the content for a book. In some cases it can be accumulated based on primacy, e.g. the first thing thought of in relation to the title becomes the soul, the second becomes its second soul, etc. with due attention to appropriateness to determine every time which title the content refers to.
On another level it is important to choose the best title for each writing, not just a very good one, and this leads to a multiplicity of titles with very little content.
Various formulas are suggested, such as a book that consists entirely of a list of other titles, a book that lists only the souls of other books, or a book that brings together the best parts of related works in a comparison. However, as a rule these are 'schizo-forms' of the true literature, which must in this case simply be a collection of all the best content that matches a title. This seems to require a degree of omniscience, as if one could read all the books in the Ancient Library of Alexandria, all translated into perfect English.
Thus, the second method is not to be preferred, although it is the inspiration for the first. However, creating a program that works on this method is not impossible, if the correct rules are known, such as:
1. The first soul of the book exclusively anticipates the title.
2. The second soul is based on the first soul.
3. Content is expanded based on souls of the book.
4. All content in some way refers to the title, or the souls, insofar as the souls are exclusive.
5. If the souls are not exclusive, additional content may be shared with another book.
6. Additional content is the sole basis for extraneous organization apart from a shortlist of highly interesting related titles. E.g. Logos might link to Arche-Fact, and Arche-Fact might link to Origins.
