Direction of Philosophy

Well, I did actually take notes this time - where, I have like three headlines ... but ... I'm not quite sure how to "bake" it. But, I figure, while I'm at it, I might start with what's effectively somewhat disjointed from the general idea I was having. I'm sure it'll come in handy eventually; And that's: Tolerance Bias.

Tolerance Bias comes in many ways. Technically it's also "behind" why I'm not so much into the whole: Why am I still doing this?/I'm done here thing that I wanted to make a bit of a thing of.
The general gist of it is, that while Bias is mostly used when we would specifically go one way over the other, Tolerance Bias is its counterpart. Where while we would generally go one way over another, there's one or more things that would to us still be good alternatives; But we generally don't get around to acknowledging them. While generally, sure, our own biases take us different ways.
Maybe we're not aware of our tolerance biases. The main idea behind calling it that, was because I noticed something - quite often - which is that while I would 'stand' for a range of things, ever so often someone else has an opinion that I also deem reasonable. To say: "I tolerate that take", essentially. And I think it's interesting because when taking it into account, we may be able to broaden our mutual agreements.

While it is certainly also a way to explain how come that conservatives have such wildly contradicting views - that is where we get into what I was primarily wanting to get at. On top of the list: "The Trajectory of Stupid".


To explain the trajectory of stupid, we can look at two general talking points among conservatives - and ... be baffled I suppose while we let it sink in. So, one argument against Universal Health care I've heard; And I'm sure it's not as fringe of a position over there as being merely isolated to this issue; Is that it's stupid to finance people's poor decisions. So, people may eat unhealthy, become sick and then need a doctor. And yea, that's ... where we find the other talking point; Which isn't as much a talking point per se - as it is more talking around an omission. So, small government, cutting back on regulations - those would be the talking points, omitting how lax regulations on food per chance has led to the widespread distribution of unhealthy food.
The reason I call this 'the trajectory of stupid' is - that this totally makes sense if we were to all agree on collectively making the most stupid choices we could possibly come up with. Like so, I can agree that financing people's "poor decisions" on nourishment for instance is a bad idea - at least that's within my range of tolerance biases - but ... well, there's a lot to unpack there.

For once, voting for a party that would call "pro health regulations" socialism - as a negative, that's a poor decision. And that's just ... a thing. Like, if you don't see that the kind of Capitalism that US citizens live under leads to cancerous developments of critical markets - and don't understand why laws to regulate those developments are important, you're missing a crucial point. If we had this as a given, the whole "not financing people's poor decisions" idea makes a lot more sense. We could more reasonably talk about it. But also would it not really 'sit' anymore, because it is then made more difficult to make poor decisions in regards to that aspect. So, not financing people's poor decisions is - checked off the list. At least that's ... like ... reasonable.
What they have instead is a market that benefits from producing unhealthy food - and people telling you that you're on your own when it comes to dealing with the consequences.

These "Free Market Dick Riders" would have you believe that you should just not buy it - so the market can sort things out. And sure - within this system, that would be one solution to the problem. I suppose the idea is like: Health Care is expensive, you can't afford it, therefore don't eat unhealthy food. But, so the question: Why should it be OK to produce unhealthy food in the first place?
See, that's like ... what regulations are for. The idea here isn't to sort food into healthy and unhealthy for you - but to keep track of stuff that's ... actually bad ... and stop corporations from selling you that. What's left is still on a spectrum between healthy and unhealthy - but certain things are being taken care of. Things you might not even know about. Things, if you had to keep track of all of them, you'd probably have to start reading and cataloging science journals.

So - we can say that there is this ominous concept of 'personal responsibility' - a derivation of a similar concept that goes by the same name, but warped into some matter of turning it into a challenge around every corner. Which is another, perhaps easier way to describe the trajectory of stupid. So, instead of looking for stupid choices to make, we look for things that just inconvenience people. "Personal Responsibility" being a great tool to get that done.

I mean, it is one way of saying that it is OK for companies to produce unhealthy food - because it challenges people to be personally responsible for their health. Versus saying that companies just should not be able to profit off of producing unhealthy food. Period, full stop, end of the line.

And it shouldn't be so complicated to explain this.

It is, pardon me, a way of understanding how conservatives live in a dream world - while the real material conditions they support render reality into a nightmare. That is the tangible reality of what this trajectory of 'stupid' comes to.

Another way to put it, is to call it 'collective irresponsibility'. Like, why - why on God's ... still kind of green ... earth - would a society that has the ability to to analyze food on a molecular level ... and the ability understand its effects on health - say: Let the individual figure it out!? - while beyond that just standing idly by?

The one reason I can find - and that's ... quite something to take in - is to put the blame for any kinds of necessities further onto the individual - as to then make an argument about denying any support on those matters.


Maybe that's not what they believe in - but apart from ideologies and religion and all that, one has to recognize that reality is in deed ... very real.
Where - and that's a bit of an esoteric take - reality isn't an isolated subset of the things that materially exist; But even extends beyond the mere existence of things that materially exist, as - within reality - they also tend to exist in some kind of tangible relationship with each other.

So we can for instance take the phrase: "Keep it real" - and use it as a lens to look at a particular thing I have on mind right now. Effectively the thing just written about. Say; And somehow I'm supposed to believe that this is a stretch already; You/We don't want people to buy unhealthy food - that is a money centric version of saying that: You/We don't want unhealthy food to be produced. Yet both statements contain an individual logic; To say, ideologically - intellectually - spiritually - cognitively - they are not the same. For - in an attempt to maximize freedom, we'd lean towards saying that we do not, or should not, care about what people buy. OK. So, in an attempt to take that and make it as stupid as can be - we have to side with the concept of producing unhealthy food. Just because ... whatever. At some point I just refuse to try and make sense of it - and right about now is a good place for that.


So, keeping something real there also involves exploring the broader concept of a thing, as to look for a more reasonable or meaningful or impactful or 'BASED' approach on it.


I generally try to operate that way. To, well, squeeze as much out of what wisdom is given to me. To not squander what opportunities I have. I mean, for what my life is worth, that's one of the things I've kind of fallen into. Maybe I'm also somewhere on the Autism spectrum and really cannot stop doing this. Like, physically. So, while my mind is screaming to stop and move on or come to an end - my tolerance bias for just keeping on going is too great.

And ... I don't know who's going to read this. Maybe I just have to keep on training my mind - so that anyone reading this really isn't the point. And yet I can't not care about whether or not people read these things. "Oh how much have I worked in vain?" - and all that. What follows is that I also don't always believe in what possible good might come of this. I mean, it's the way of philosophy. People talk and write - and all that people end up caring about is that piece or two that resonates with them.
But - that's already something.


So - one sensible idea, for a variety of reasons, would be to focus on some kind of Carbon budget. We can start by thinking of it as a hypothetical - which, applied to the economy, allows us to construct a carbon cost. So, saying that we shouldn't produce unhealthy food - leaves us with the production of healthy food and what carbon cost is associated with it. Now - I don't know how spoiling it with unhealthy nonsense could actually come at a lower carbon cost, but - for the sake of argument - let's just say. If we were mindful of a budget, that now left us with a hypothetical problem. Would we rather produce unhealthy food - or ... stuff like unrecyclable plastics, cheap/unsturdy clothing, fuel inefficient cars that kill people and a lot of other nonsense that we don't actually need?

See, the issue seems to be that as far as like the oil industry is concerned ... healthy food isn't really ... a thing to care about. If anything it might be bad - because - I don't know, dropping a bunch of crude oil into food for good measure wouldn't really fly.

And sure - to stem this, we'd have to work together. If we could work together to that extent; We could even do more. We could find, for instance, that we can get comfortably below budget - though we'd have to give up a few things. And staying below budget would be a net positive. But - if we ever needed, or wanted, to go over budget ... it could be a deliberate choice. We could settle on doing a thing ... where we for some purpose went over budget ... while so having a foreseeable end to it.
And while that might be too optimistic ... it's better than ... uhm ... the whole "only money matters" approach.

I mean - from what I've heard, the situation in the USA is a bit like this: Imagine you were some ancient tribe. Like ... 10.000 years ago. You had your dwellings, fertile grounds - and plenty of uninhabited space all around you. So, you had some animals, some plants - a whole wealth of things. Then some traveler arrived, a merchant, and he has these stones. Basically just pebbles. And he wants to sell them to you - in exchange for carrots. Someone from your tribe then decided it to be a great idea, rounded up some bullies and forced everyone else to from now on only plant carrots. So, at first it might be bearable - but eventually you'd just be tired of carrots. Yet, everytime someone complained - that dude thought that you're ungrateful; And then, in order to increase his pebble margin, reduced the amount of carrots you'd get from your labor.

And yea, we might call that "Capitalism Plus" (that is: Capitalism + Hegemonic Oppression).


Which, yea, perhaps sounds like a great idea to some.
It is however not a new idea.


So, what I mean by 'direction' of Philosophy, isn't about what direction it's taking - but how it is being directed; As by a director. So, if we look at that trajectory of stupid - we may surmise that there has to be someone; A group maybe; that maintains it. One way to do that, would be to describe certain things that are connected as not connected; And things that are not connected as connected. Sure ... everything is connected, but you should get what I'm trying to say here.
I mean ... J. Petersson is a great example of someone who seems to have put a lot of skill points into that. Now disgraced Professor of Psychology - for once has this title; Though some analysis of his work reveals that it is more in line with Philosophy than it is with Psychology. Philosophy, that when tainted in the terminus of Psychology, may appear as the profound wisdom of a scholar of the mind. Since most of what he's saying as of late is utter nonsense - in my opinion - there will be critics. The better informed someone is about the matters he seems to be talking about, the more likely that person is to critique him. Thus it behooves him to play the role of someone who is under attack; For having an opinion, or having a political opinion, or exercising free speech.
But ... to not dwell too much on this dipshit ... what I'm getting at is a question. The really simple form is: How are we going to have a reasonable debate? For a more extended version we can add some accusations coated as context to what is being asked.

The issue boils down to the ability 'we' have, individually and as a collective, to deal with reason. So, suppose 'both sides' get at this, showing examples of how unreasonable the other side is. Like I just did. If the corresponding divide seems to be absolute - then we can deduce that something's wrong. Either one side resorts to misrepresenting the other, or feeds their audience with utter bullshit. Or both and/or more. Like, if I say that the sky has a red~ish taint right now - and the other side says that the sky can only be blue or gray, then I would appear to have been exposed as a liar. To people who would believe that nonsense. To maintain that belief - people might say that the red taint is demons. Perhaps. While trying to keep people inside during twilight. Arguing that the sky just magically turns dark. Because ... God ... I guess.

Now, what I have in store - as for a reasonable discussion - although I think there's not much reasonable about this discussion we're having right now - is math. So, fractals like the Mandelbrot set and the whole space of visualizing the realm of complex numbers. It's quite fascinating, although I sure couldn't do the math (or recall the basics) myself, when thinking about boundaries and transitions. The Mandelbrot set may be a bad example because all the fancy stuff that the visualizations show is technically 'outside' of the set; And only shows how many steps a calculation takes before being 'out' for good - and yet are there specks "outside" of the main body that are 'in' the set - and the visualizations show what's in-between.
You don't need to pay attention to the math - and if you want to skip it alltogether, start with the fourth chapter ("The Fractal" @11:something minutes). And if you want to skip hard ... just move on to the next video. Though ... that might be taking it too far.
As for my point - well, I guess we can start with the thing that we're somewhat stuck between reason and unreason. And, arguably, we don't know which is which. And it relates, because all we need to do, is to understand that it would take some amount of time - "steps" - to figure out where an idea belongs. But that's beside the point.
What I'm trying to get at is somewhat silly, but ... that's the topic here anyway.
So - looking at this, one might think to themselves, that these fractals are nonsense; Because ... they merely arise from our limitations. Within infinity, the absolute, things are either here or there. At least ... it would seem to be a reasonable argument. But ... actually ... there are still points that never get to a solution. These are those infinite loops talked about in the second video. The thesis, I think, behind those videos is, that any point is either squarely on one side of things, or on all possible ones. Suggesting, that if you took one of those 'stuck' points - you could, by a tiny nudge, make it go to any of the available sides. Which is obvious if there are only two - but more complicated if there are three.
This however isn't to make a case about sides, but to say that although these boundaries might appear to be the product of an artificial limitation - a.k.a. meaningless - there's science to it. Sure, the meaning of the meaningless - if you so will.

Taking it one step further, the truth is, that these limitations aren't artificial. More to the point is each step taken - one step beyond the very real limitation of the space we occupy. Doing no math at all ... leaves it all in the dark. And the more math we do, the more we see the full picture unfold. And for a great example of how 'useless' math might eventually become 'useful' - you might check out the math of Knots.

So - what this is to say, is ... that an overly simplistic understanding is magical - because reality itself is amazingly complex. So - yea, talking about Gender perhaps; Where we have male and female - as two sides between which reality should be simple. But understanding that the gendered implication of either sex have an impact on the human mind - and that this mind isn't guaranteed to have a fixed relationship to either of those, opens up a third - at the very least. And with a third ... things ... can become really intricately complex.
If we went by the math.

To simplify this, yet again, the point I'm trying to make here is, that the complexity between boundaries is intrinsic to reality itself. And all it takes is a tiny nudge - so to speak - for us to get there. And thus, given the vast expanses of times and spaces - one could not hope to forever contain things within the simplest of forms. Though certain things - or most perhaps - are contained within simple forms - that simplicity might be deceiving.


And I suppose I could go on. So - what has this got to do with anything?
Well ...

The question I was asking was: How can we have a reasonable discussion? And if you so will, add: "if [such and such]", as for this part of the story: If we are to ignore things that are obviously there?

I mean, certain ideas have certain implications - and we might not be able to get to the bottom of each and every one within a realistic time frame. So, what we can do is; I think that's the right term: Rationalize. Doing so requires us to accept certain things that are undoubtedly real - and while some of it is theoretic, not all of it is. Some things further just support themselves. Some might refer to them as 'logical traps' - and so there's the trajectory of stupid, as a method to avoid such 'traps'. Because it's scary to think that maybe it's wrong. So, why not just be wrong on purpose and be done with it?

And it goes on and on. Maybe because that's just the math of us falling to a side; And nothing could ever be done about it. In that case, well, I suppose this whole world and the shit we endure was a bad idea. Pointless and for naught. Call it a failed experiment, perhaps. And why are we still here? Maybe God doesn't want to admit failure?

And sure - we do have some kind of default setting I assume. And if it's certain that some people would inevitably go to hell - that'd perhaps be due to some cut-off point. Whatever. I however like to believe that the individual mind isn't as static as a mathematical formula. So are there terms such as 'repentance' or 'change'. Growth. In that image, it isn't wrong or bad to be stuck between the sides - as nobody is really only one thing. Whatever time may hold.

So yea, in this instance ... talking of Christ is a solution - although not the only one. I suppose each individual is more or less receptive to different things. A lot of people might find faith in God or Christ based on matters of logic and reason. The philosophy itself. Some though might need a nudge - to say: Trust in the most high. Repent. Find your way to the One who knows best. Learn about trust in Him. So He may guide you to the green pastures - rather than taking the green paint to the rocks and telling yourself you're there.

The thing is - when talking of the Wrath of God that is to befall the unbelievers; It makes a lot more sense to see it in this context. That it isn't the proclaimed faith that counts - but the lived one. And if an Atheist lives as more in touch with the principles of Christ than a Christian - whom do you think Christ favors more?


The written word is also a lot like these fractals. As time moves on, our understanding of it may change - just like our idea of what matters today would. Speaking of Slavery - words spoken on the matter in a world where Slavery was integral to the day to day life, wouldn't quite matter in the same way in a world where Slavery isn't really accepted all that much anymore.

And when holding on to it imposes ignorance - rather than enlightenment - you're blind to the real truth that is.


And that's me done for the day. As always, I possibly could have written more about everything and have been more specific about just as much - but maybe not. Which would mean that I'm fallible though, or not as perfect as inhumanly possible ... and I guess ... that's something I have to live with. After all - infinity is also a dimensionality of time. And even with all the money and support in the world ... I could ever only do 'so much'. Thank you!