Thanks all for the answers, very helpful.

A thing and its opposite are not necessarily symmetrical. Symmetry is spatial—you may be talking about balance. And yes, balance is essential in ethics. But it’s not about balance between good and evil—I think that’s where you might be confused. Good is balance.

And they are...?

They are all over this forum—I think there are a lot of people on here with interesting views about what reality fundamentally is about.

for every thing that is [asymmetry], there's something that is not [symmetry].

This in itself is not symmetry, it’s the opposite.

But surely there is ethical value in finding beauty in people, and in producing things that people will find beautiful—is there not? I don’t mean to say that beauty is as logical as right and wrong may be—only that it is ultimately subservient to ethical concerns in this way.

But it is, no? Look around you, what do you see? Asymmetry and symmetry trying to get one up on each other, sometimes succeeding, other times failing, with success and failure equally distributed between the two.

This is an interesting idea, but I think there are many other equally interesting ways of framing reality. The question is, which frame wins in the long run? There are many things in reality that are symmetrical, but I would argue asymmetry is actually more fundamental. Consider 1 = 1. This appears to be symmetrical, until you consider that you evaluate the expression in a certain order. This means that asymmetry always exists, in the form of temporality, at bottom.

If symmetry = beauty and reality is about symmetry, beauty is the last word on reality.

In my mind, symmetry and beauty are distinct, though related. And I do not think reality is about symmetry, for reasons I’ve previously covered. Interesting idea, though.

The ego may be our biggest obstacle.

I’d probably agree with that. I think we’re more or less on the same page.

Panentheism is "the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it". This may be closer to what you have in mind.

I tend to think panentheism is a more versatile concept, and a bridge to everything from atheism (figurative panentheism) to polytheism to theism. It’s the Swiss Army knife model of reality, it seems to me.

For a while when I was young I foolishly believed that nothing is more than the sum of its parts. Then one day I realized that everything is more than the sum of its parts. This of course includes the universe—so it only makes sense that the universe as a sum would be distinct from that which is more than the sum (literally or figuratively).

Thanks! When you say that the teleonomy element bears scrutiny, do you mean you believe that our fundamental ethical motivations are utilitarian rather than intuitive?

Thanks! When you say that the teleonomy element bears scrutiny, do you mean you believe that our fundamental ethical motivations are utilitarian rather than intuitive?

TheMadFool, I don’t see it as a cosmic duel between beauty and ugliness—it just pertains to art. And in art, beauty just properly wins—where it doesn’t, it’s bad (or misunderstood) art.

Also, a balance between good and evil should not be the goal—the goal is for good to handily win.

I certainly don’t believe that beauty is the be all end all of reality. It’s only that the manufacture and discovery of beauty are just one aspect of what’s right in life.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—very good point. At the same time however, there is a certain convergence in many cases. This is why some artists become influential, and why cultural standards of beauty develop. This is not to say these norms are always right, however 1) convergence does point to some level of objectivity, and 2) insofar as it doesn’t, consensus is sometimes wrong and should be corrected, and this seems to point to at least some linkage between aesthetics and ethics.

Very true.

Thanks Pantagruel. I suppose I believe that we are truly rational animals. I believe Aristotle was right about that. I believe that the ideas that “people are stupid”, or that “people don’t think” are truisms, and greatly obscure progress in the world.

Interesting. I think it’s safe to say that for most if not all of my adulthood, I’ve been driven by a desire to look past my own biases on some level. I’d say I’m more politically involved than I used to be, but at the same time, I find conversation and unity to be extremely important.

Fair enough, SophistiCat. As indicated in my last post, I believe this has primarily to do with teleonomy and how we react to it. There is no cosmic reason to do the right thing, there’s just the fact that we are most of us concerned with it, and therefore to fully participate in humanity requires that the rest of us are concerned with it as well. By ‘ought’ entailing ‘is’, I mean something Kantian—our understanding of what is true is shaped by how evidence ought to be interpreted in order to best understand the world and others.

I have great respect for Hume, but I think what we perceive is not a ‘metaphysic of value’, but simply a fact of collective teleonomy—that we collectively do behave this way. To preserve this behavior is therefore consistent in a higher order manner.

(Which is ethically right.)

TheMadFool, I suspect that what you perceive as a balance between beauty and ugliness is in fact beauty winning out over ugliness (see my previous post for an example).

The word ‘appropriate’ was added out of caution, as there do seem to be certain cases where finding beauty is seemingly inappropriate. For example, WWII death camps. It’s conceivable that you could argue that art about such a topic can still be beautiful, but perhaps the overall beauty of such art is contingent on local ugliness.

Thanks for reading, Possibility. I actually disagree, in that I believe it is irrationally cynical to deny that we are naturally motivated by rationality. Additionally, the terms ‘hope’, ‘faith’, ‘intuition’ and ‘love’ are used here as technical terms used solely to define a certain mechanics of mentality.

It seems to me that the problem of induction is properly mitigated rather than solved. In order for us to even comprehend the problem to begin with, we have to first place a certain level of faith in the workings of the understanding—that we perceive the problem correctly is believed out of faith. Faith in the workings of the understanding however entails to some degree, I suspect, faith in induction itself—since it’s so fundamental to understanding.

Physicalism in a practical sense seems very sensible to me; however, in a strict and technical philosophical sense it doesn’t seem to fit. The fact that I am aware of the physical world only through my experience of it means the physical is deduced from “something else”. Whether this “something else” resolves with anything supernatural is another question entirely, of course.

I agree that the mind is not information, but to say it is biological is not an argument against this—biology is simply a naturalistic angle from which to view the mind. I believe hypericin is looking for another, perhaps more Cartesian, angle from which to view it. I might suggest that the mind is processing, rather than what is processed.

I think it’s also possible to be interested in politics while remaining apolitical to some degree. It’s about an interest in finding an equitable solution for everyone with good intentions (and despite what many would have us believe, there are plenty of well-intentioned people on both sides).

Hi Possibility, thanks for the comment. In my mind, the idea that the non-normalized is more natural, at least in the context of human understanding, is a product of irrational cynicism. Once the process of normalization is truly catalyzed, it becomes entirely natural.

There isn't any way to completely abstract from the lived-experience of the life-project, which is fundamental; more fundamental than the notion of some abstract objective reality, which is an illusion. If there is a higher logical order, it is being created through moral action, I would say. In which case, belief-systems and life-projects are indispensable.

I feel as though you’re manufacturing disagreement where there is none. I will say, that there isn’t any way to completely abstract experience is an assumption, as is saying that abstract reality is an illusion (although objectivity is admittedly always tentative). I completely however agree that higher logical order is created through moral action—that is the whole gist of my philosophy. And yes, in that sense I completely agree that belief systems and life projects are important.

Belief in the importance of abstraction/generality is a belief of a higher logical order, and therefore by nature it assists in building bridges between beliefs of lower logical orders.

Pamtagruel, a big part of the takeaway of my philosophy is that what is natural and what is artificial is contextual, and the direction of that contextuality ultimately hinges on rational hope vs. cynicism. In the hopeful sense, I believe abstraction is entirely natural in the human mind in the absence of constraints and interference. And in either case, abstraction is not in itself a specific belief system—that idea seems confused to me. I absolutely agree with you about building bridges and establishing common ground—however, the infrastructure required to do this is exactly the abstract and the general. In this way, I believe, we both in fact value abstraction and generality in this sense, and therefore agree.

Thanks very much, Joshs. I’m actually not very familiar with Levinas, although I just read up on him a bit and I can see why you might think we share some ideas. But yes, I’ve always really connected with Wittgenstein, both the earlier and the later. And Peirce has been an influence as well.

For what it’s worth, I’m also interested in anyone’s answer to the stated question as well, generally.

Thanks for taking a look Pantagruel. Fair question/comment. In the context of database normalization, yes, I suppose you might be able to say data is non-normalized in its natural state. I’m not really basing my theory on a comparison to database normalization however, just giving credit where credit is due (since that’s how I thought of the idea).

Thanks for taking a look Pantagruel. Fair question/comment. In the context of database normalization, yes, I suppose you might be able to say data is non-normalized in its natural state. I’m not really basing my theory on a comparison to database normalization however, just giving credit where credit is due (since that’s how I thought of the idea).

Thanks Amity. I’m engaging with the philosophy community again, which means I’m recovering.

Hi Amity, in my own case I felt I was being told that the meaning or purpose of my life was invalid, or even wrong in some way. This led to feelings of invisibility, helplessness and isolation.

Free will is impossible to prove directly, in the same way that we cannot prove that we are not all ‘philosophical zombies’ without consciousness. Free will is an aspect of the starting point, just as consciousness is. I am a compatibilist, however, and I also have an ultimately deterministic outlook. In my mind, that is only to say that in theory, if we had infinite computational powers we could calculate every event leading up to our choices.

Acting out of emotion does not necessitate consciously acting with motivation. However, we take other actions prior to this which do affect the outcome. We reinforce and overcome habits, we train ourselves for restraint, we prepare for certain reactions, and so on. These entail implicit motivation in all action.

I probably agree with the previous answer, at least in large part. But I’d also add that what we often call self-interest, our fundamental motivations, are not self-interest at all—they are simply teleonomic. We just act as though we are self-interested, when in fact on that level it’s nothing but instinct.

I believe the solution to the is/ought dichotomy is that it is a false dichotomy—‘ought’ entails ‘is’, for what is the case is what ought to be the case given the available evidence and the powers of our understanding. And the truth ultimately aids us in doing the right thing. ‘Is’ is therefore an outgrowth of ‘ought’.

My own thought is that one’s own consciousness is perhaps defined by being that which includes everything else explicitly or directly implicitly (e.g. that which is not immediately mentally present). This includes objective reality. Objective reality then indirectly implicitly contains consciousness itself (through a mental representation of itself), and the ‘system’ therefore tessellates. The consciousness of other people is also indirectly implied through mental representations.

I expect that if equipped with the right conceptual tools, an equitable society is, to some degree, an inevitability. We will never completely get there, but once things are catalyzed, we will only tend to get closer and closer. As for these tools, I believe they’re an amalgam of philosophy, computer science and poetry.

The fundamentally tessellating nature of the understanding disproves solipsism—once we hit the edge of solipsistic understanding, we’re warped directly back to a reality with others.