The Defining Game

Okay, veering away from the value thinger for a moment, I'm frustrated with the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I'm not done reading it yet, but the author is arguing quite strongly that not all things can be defined, and they can only be grasped through some mystic immediate knowledge. I wholly disagree.

Truth is useful because it represents a glimpse of reality. Truths are tiny pinhole windows of understanding along a long wall in a dark room. The hope is that we will eventually poke enough holes in the wall to see clearly. Some disagree with this, and I'll get to Gödel and Quine in an upcoming post (I tend to have a few rough drafts on the go at a time.) I disagree as well, in the sense that we as human being could ever know everything. There are limits to our perceptions, and there is an enormous amount of information being generated every moment. Something that Pirsig points out (well, Poincaré points it out) is that there are an infinite number of hypotheses that correlate to empirical evidence. So any idea that create from a posteriori knowledge contains the possibility to being only interpretive and equally valid to another interpretation.

Portrait of a skeptic

Sadly, as a skeptic I also have to hold that only those things which are self-evident are can be considered true as the rest could be an elaborate hoax. I cannot know the validity of my perceptions or authority figures with the same certainty as the knowledge that a triangle has three sides. I would guess that each interpretation is probably at best 99% accurate, showing overlap in being able to explain some phenomena, but also being wrong to some small degree. I would assert that there is a solid reality, but that we cannot know all of it... at least not nearly yet.

Pirsig goes on to try to justify the mystic mode of "knowledge" by getting people to try to define "quality" and showing that they can't do it in a simple sentence even though we all know what we are talking about. I think the problem is with his definition of definitions. It's really nice to have something spelled out on paper, in black and white, but as an artist myself I can tell you that the syntax of that language is limited (as are all languages.) Perhaps oral/written languages are as ill-equipped to handle "quality" as music is to handle shopping lists. Behind each idea, each interpretation of bit of the world as you see it is a tiny collapsed point of an idea. Let's call this the virtual idea. To clarify, I'm not talking about Pure Idea, just the bit of a particular idea that you then express.

Wittgenstein has this great solution in his book Philosophical Investigations. He says that we learn words through "language games," such that given enough examples of something we can eventually refine our understanding of the word (as a symbol) of the virtual idea. I think Pirsig should have considered this possibility. It makes things much more difficult to write down, but can be the only way to express something (especially as language only works for shared experience.) Perhaps we need to extend our definition of valid definitions to include things known (ie: virtual ideas) that are shared understanding, but cannot be expressed in a given language.

I must admit then that formal logic may be missing something as it is bound by its syntax. Granted I would suspect then that anything proven with rigour via self-evident statements  should be true, but that you can only find a subset of all truths deducible from self-evident statements.

Outline:

1. Ideas exist as hypotheses to help us understand reality
• They may be refined
• An infinite number of hypothesis exist that can explain any phenomena as long as they are deficient even in the slightest way
2. Words are symbols (placeholders) for ideas
• We use them to communicate
• We can only communicate shared experience
• Language-games define things by showing
• Language games do not rely on strict syntax
• There are some things that traditional definitions cannot express
• We need to extend our concept of "definition" to include things that do not express well in the common language
3. All languages are only able to express a subset of all things that you would like to express
• Music cannot tell you to buy milk, but verbal language can't express some ideas that music can
4. Formal logic is a type of language, and thus can only express a subset of truths

Do as I Say, Not as I Do

I'm going to start by saying that I have no background on political science, so if someone does and finds a problem with what I say, please educate me on it.

Kaitlin over at Equality Kitten made a post about Stephen Harper's condemnation of an American church threatening to burn some Qur'ans on September 11th. I think her post is great, but I have to point out a smaller problem that may not have resolution:

"...I am a big fan of freedom of religion, and thus allow Harper his own beliefs..."

Yes, Harper can have his own beliefs, but only within a limit. We can extract a key position from this statement: freedom of thought and religion.

Freedom on religion only exists in the private sphere in Canada. But the private has the potential for becoming public. That's what a democratic society is. A group of people expressing their beliefs on a particular topic. Religion (or any belief system, theistic or otherwise) shapes a person's views.

One theory (and a good one in my opinion) is that ethics and morality are codes used to promote the functioning of a society. If someone's belief system runs contrary to what would help the individuals in a society function bot in isolation and as a community, or impede them in any way from feeling fulfillment, then their belief or action is by definition unethical, immoral, or both. For example, opposing gay marriage is unethical because it oppresses a group of individuals who constitute a part of society, and limits their ability to cultivate their happiness at the expense of no one else. Same with denying women to be clergy (if they choose not to be that is their prerogative.)

As mentioned above, Canadian law is established such that a person can follow their personal code of conduct in the private sphere, but

We also have two contradictory positions at play:

1. Freedom of expression of personal beliefs (including religion)
2. Separation of church and state

See the inconsistency? These two rules allow for the possibility of a Cardinal to become Prime Minister. A Cardinal holds many unethical beliefs... that is to say, beliefs that would limit the cultivation of growth and happiness of many individuals in a society. This is a problem.

So what is the solution? Make it unambiguous and specific what the goal of government is: the smooth running of a society that promotes the well being and positive growth of each citizen as best it can provide. Hold whatever views you like Harper, just don't bring them all with you to work.

We approach this unambiguity more in the judicial branch of government, which is built on a series of axioms in the form of documents (Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms &c) and the doctrine of precedent, in a (hypothetically) purely logical fashion. Of course this can fail too, but typically only on the failing to adhere to unbiased logic, or the lack of an axiom that needs to be there (which will fix itself as time goes on and law is refined.)

The Schrödinger Imperative

I will be including outlines of the ideas covered at the end of every (philosophical) post in order to make review of the core ideas presented quick, and to remove some of the bias I could create with rhetorical [self-]deception by presenting it in a bare bones, skeleton form.

It's official: I'm trapped. We all are.

For some reason, I am here. I exist, I think, I have awareness, I make choices. I did not decide to be here. How could I? I didn't choose to have choice. But I do. The fact that I think gives my agency. This is also not a choice. It's there, and I use it all the time. To stop having agency would require killing myself (unless I'm missing something), but doing so requires agency too. It would be an act of agency. I cannot simply "turn agency off."

All choices that I make are done on the basis of some justification. If I do something "random," I've really just chosen to do something unexpected. There is no random. I am a machine. The gears and cogs all turn and chug away, and I do things on a basis no different from a wind-up toy. Okay, I'm a pretty complex wind-up toy, but a machine never the less. I agree with Laplace when he said:

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes"

Perhaps this is what some people mean by "fate." You cannot escape it. With enough understanding of the parts involved, you could predict every little action. I've held for some time that free will is an illusion. Granted, it's an illusion that is necessary for the way we function... but it is still an illusion.

Part of this machinery that constitutes us is (in a virtual sense) the act of evaluation. We take input, evaluate it, and output an action (thought, idea, motion, belief, and so on). But we have this little problem. On what basis do we evaluate? It's quite simple to evaluate things as being bigger or smaller than each other. On a more complex level, it is just as easy to compare things to a prototypical "image" of something, or to say that something is closer or further away from an ideal. But to say that something is better than another, such as that it is better to live or better to get out of bed in the morning (or their inverses), you need to evaluate them on the basis of a personal beliefs called values.

In some sense, you are still comparing things to some "image", it is just an image of value. Where did you get this image? On what basis do you evaluate these images against each other? There needs to be an underlying image, and an image for that image, and so as you spin out ad infinitum (and really: ad absurdum.) You need a basis that is justified somehow. We have a priori truths. These seem to be the only way to go as far as I can tell.

So in order for a person to evaluate any input, they need a set of beliefs called values. Without values, you cannot evaluate, you cannot make decisions, you in effect cannot think (as thinking requires constant choice and evaluation), and then the major premise "I think therefore I am" falls apart. And then what are you? You are inert matter, devoid of thought and life.

But you do not have a choice about that. You do think. Anything that you do now requires choice, and everything that goes with it. If you do, or do not do, anything, you are still in the same trap. It does not require judgement to discern then that resolving this crisis is nothing short of imperative.

Outline:

1. I exist
• I think therefore I am 
2. Thinking is an action
• This is agency
• I cannot "turn off" my agency
• If I did I would have no justification for #1
• The only conceivable way is suicide
• It takes agency to "turn off" agency
• It is a choice (see #3 and #4)
3. Actions all involve choice (do this or not to do this), despite how conscious of a process this is
4. Choices require evaluation
• Evaluation is dependent on values
• One must resolve value nihilism in order to make choices
5. It is imperative that my existential crisis be resolved
• I cannot change #1 without resolving this crisis
• There is no way out
• It is an imperative in order for #1 to hold true

The Value of Value (or "cogito ergo efficio")

Why am I looking for value? I am looking for it, after all. It may be a modified concept of "value," but it seems that I must value something! So why do I value value?

"I think not!"

The simple answer is that I am fighting off Schrödinger's zombie. I have agency for some reason that is beyond me, but I do not have the tools with which to use it. For some reason I have arrived where I am now, able to think and be self aware. I am not only able to make decisions, but I must make decisions and that requires evaluating all sorts of things. From the point at which I now sit, I have a certain lifeless, momentum of being existentially undead.

Without a foundation for value, my options are all as trivial as to turn right or turn left along an unending series of forks in the road, past unmarked signs leading to something (or nothing). This is the Void.

To be without value is to be robbed of agency. It is not possible to voluntarily do this, as that would require choice, and thus agency, and thus value. It seems that value is an imperative for anything that is self aware. As soon as cogito ergo sum, then cogito ergo efficio.

Unfounded Rationality Found

I have hereto rejected the transcendent in favour of the imminent as the basis for [my understanding and/or belief in] reality, and for what can form a ground of value. The transcendent often suffers from the fact that it cannot be measured scientifically, and thus could be a trick of the mind... poor biological programming if you will. Certainly not a solid foundation for universal truths.

That is not to say that the transcendent is not a type of truth, it's just that it's a subjective truth, and thus "true" in the same sense as experiencing things that may not be there. It is true to say that one experiences something, but truths that are not self evident are really only beliefs. I cannot find the transcendent in rational a priori reasoning. It can only be verified  by some people in some a posteriori ways. Thus, the transcendent is hardly a solid foundation from which to build the foundation of one's reality. Or perhaps that is some shortcoming in the scope of reason, as "reason" has broadened over the centuries. Or perhaps I am deficient in some way.

Why do I use rational judgement? Won't the only thing I find with this method be things that fit within its scope, namely rationality and logic? At the surface it seems most plausible that it is because I live in reality (whether I perceive it accurately or not), and so logic shows truths which reveal indisputable parts reality to me. It's a practical tool. But why value practicality? In fact, practicality has built within it the concept of value hierarchy and assumptions about what is "good." So I have the "defining function defining itself again" problem again.

I'll break down my conditions for success:

1. It must define a ground for value, or provide another paradigm to justify agency (I will write a post on this in a few days)
2. The end result must be one that I understand
3. I can understand in a variety of ways, but the most reliable is intellectual because it has the capacity to be coherent and irrefutable

It then follows that rational thought is the most reliable way to approach this issue, though it is not necessarily what will bring the correct answer. It just has the highest likelihood of success based on the conditions outlined above.

Status Quo: 101

I had my first sociology class today. This is my second shot at post-secondary, and dear me is it sloooooooow.

I skipped first year the first time around because I completed the International Baccalaureate program, and was given that privilege. Plus I challenged my way through most of the classes that I already knew the material for. In other words, I skipped all the intro classes.

My professor seems like a nice enough guy. A little self-deprecating, but on the whole I get the sense that he's quite a competent professor. He did say something severely problematic though.

"...I could give you an entire lecture on a cup of coffee. I could talk about all of the injustices that happened in order to bring your coffee here. But you shouldn't change behaviour because of analysis. Some of us still need coffee to function this early in the morning."

Okay... WHAT? He had just talked at length about Canadian First Nations apartheid, and how it creates social inequalities. But don't do anything about it. You still enjoy the privileges that this system gives you (if you are of another ethic group that is). He said that a doctor who identifies a product as causing cancer has no responsibility, and in fact cannot do anything about the fact that it is on the market and that the public is not aware of how harmful it can be. He directly said that you wouldn't be able to live your life if you go about things this way. If you challenge what your friends say, you will become very unpopular.

My view:

1. The doctor in his example has an ethical responsibility to take action
• Because of their claim to authority, this doctor has many tools available to them
• Conduct a scientific study
• Get the media interested
• Start an advocacy group
• Talk to existing advocacy groups
2. Individuals constitute society. If enough individuals change their views, this becomes subculture, and eventually it becomes de facto culture.
• If you have the privilege of being charismatic, you can cause change in many people
• You need to be the change you wish to see in the world
• What is generally an unpopular mode of interaction today (high degree of analysis) could become the social norm
3. My professor is advocating for the status quo. As a sociologist, he should know that social change happens, and that it happens because of people challenging the status quo. Every new idea does this.

My professor has managed to resurrect the beast that was my insatiable drive of my first time in post-secondary 5 years ago. He has an adversary. I will challenge this view of his using the tools that he supplies. I will do the course readings, I will do the suggested extra course readings, and I will go the the original texts that these are based on to further my understanding of the material vastly beyond what he will expect from a first-year student. And I will use it to challenge him publicly (in class) and privately (office hours). He will not enjoy it.

I will teach my teacher.

Schrödinger's Ethic

Nihilism is a funny thing. Simply put, life has no inherent meaning. But that fact in itself has no inherent meaning if it is to be true. So when people are upset by the lack of inherent meaning in the world, they should just as easily be happy about it. It's no justification to go kill yourself. It's no justification to keep living either. You just remain a ghost. I sometimes feel like Schrödinger's cat, simultaneously alive and dead, living in contradiction. Yay for cognitive dissonance.

I continue live my life as I otherwise would, as a way to hedge my bets. If I find a good reason to live, I'll want to have a job and an eduction. If I find reason to die, then I have nothing anyway. It's as close to win-win as you can get in this situation, it just means that I have to put in effort and invest in the possibility that I will find justification for living.