Re: [design] preface: this modern world (1)


hi Janez. intriguing thoughts... thanks for sharing.
here is an online definition of what antagonism is:

The combined action of two or more substances to produce an effect less than the sum of their individual effects; the opposite of synergism.
instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/tox607/tox607_glossary.htm

it is possible that antagonism functions similarly to
pre-disposed bias, and if people hold opposing views
of idea it could be seen as a spectrum of options of
how the idea could be considered. say, on a line in
which a neutral state would be zero (0) and negative
appraisal (-1) and positive appraisal (+1), such as:

(-1)----------(0)----------(+1)

or to simplify further:

(-)----------(0)----------(+)

and if taking 'zero' as neutral, it could
be replaced by 'N' which is for 'neutral'...

(-)----------(N)----------(+)


there is thus negative, neutral, and positive
positions of some situation in this model.
it just so happens this is also a model of the
atom, electronics (-) protons (+) neutrons (N).

when things are held in (binary) opposition,
which logic today is based upon in thinking,
and computing, there is an inherent 'forced'
bias which chooses a perspective or point-of-
view which is based upon the language used,
the logical utilized, and the psychological
identity which positions a person's viewpoint.

if the line above is a 'choice' of viewpoint,
there may not actually be a best viewpoint,
for any given situation or question: it may
be 'true' 'false' or 'unknown' (neutral).
that is, if it is seen as one analysis. if
appreciating all the views (-,N,+) of some
situation, it could be representative of an
entire realm of possibility.

because the logic, language, and identity
are confined by private vantages of 'man',
the most 'public' that this spectrum can
exist in (between true, false, and unknown)
is the range of man's perception of reality.

taking into account the complexity of human
behavior, this gets subsumed to a lesser view
and logic by which to assess and judge human
reality based on the beliefs and ideas of man.
a forced bias occurs by which different 'men'
become different points of view in a binary
logic, language, and identity: either, or.
the neutral disappears, the open questioning,
and choices are made between truth and falsity
of given situations, not based on 'man' as the
public experience, but instead private views
of particular men as their own universalisms.

i have written extensively on list about this,
in terms of venn logic diagrams and i find it
frustrating to try to write it out rather than
to diagram it and discuss. in any case, it is
this same model of the atom which can function
as a model for addressing paradox (and, as you
write, opening questions) though it is more an
issue of scale/conceptualization which i will
reference below... first though, i want to add
that this same model, if adapted into a 'human'
spectrum of choices, would allow many people to
relate their decision-making in relation to one-
another (that is, empirically) where a weighted
line of analyses/observations could function,
as if a bell-curve, though in quantum computing
scenarios where a question is a 'superposition'
which may be queried based on its contingency to
a given set of observations, infinite numbers of
views, which can change as can queried outcomes,
if the paradox of neutral observation is secured.

...antagonism...
there are all along our lifetime...
you know , we know, everybody knows there are antagonisms; so maybe you
believe to resolve them, ??:
how
to abolish; (so there is nothing - no bad no good);
to take one part; (preserve /maybe better/ one, destroy /maybe bad/ the
other);
to harmonize both antagonistic sides; (so called good and so called bad
toghether in happiness)
to persist in an open situation, in abyss, maybe to think, taking a moment
to put right question; not knowing the answer, ...

this is exactly it. exactly. like with modeling
of ideas, conceptualizing of ideas in terms of
circuits, the place mathematics and language
meet is in the conceptualization of what are
called Venn Logic Diagrams. what they introduce
is a concept of 'scale' that allows classes, sets,
subsets, subclasses to coexist in relation to one
another. it is the origin of computing from that
of electronics circuitry, where the code comes
from, at an intersection of ideas of how to
make words into numbers, concepts into code.

what is going on in terms of:

identity (man vs human)

language (private vs public)

& logic (binary vs paradoxical)

is that man's private language and binary logic
are limiting the scale of public human ideas,
by containing them at a lower scale that is
necessary to make them real through actions,
rational in a sense, that human agency is the
larger universality rather than man's worldview.*

(*search engines _should be based on this approach
yet instead they are using the inferior modeling.
i even tried to get work with google though they
did not even consider the visualization of logic;
effectively interfacing a mathematics of language,
which is basically boolean logic with scale added.
so you can choose from various perspectives and-or
subjectivities, and can exist/navigate in paradox.)

a venn diagram would look something like this:


GIF image



U is the field of the universe and it can
be named something in particular, like a
class. this is where 'scale' can be used,
to hierarchically relate empirical ideas.
man is thus a subclass of the universe...

what is happening today, it is proposed, is
that 'man' is hierarchically limiting the
ability to reach a human point of view, as a
result of private language, logic, identity.

GIF image



private views of man, his kind, and beliefs
of the universal (god, values, ethics, desires)
attempt to become universalized for all humans,
when logically at most this could be just for
mankind (only 50% of the population, so at least
half of the sampling of the questions of truth,
falsity, and neutral unknowns are biased by man
as the context for 'public' questions beyond man.
man is the logical interface for humanity in the
universe. results are compelling it is a disaster.


GIF image



if humanity was the universality, instead of
mankind, it would reorder the hierarchies so
that the larger set is humanity, so that man
does not limit human potentials, and thus if
this is held as a common relation, it could
bridge across many different (various views
of a human spectrum of perspective, based on
various languages, logics, identities) POVs
[points of view] and redefines the concepts
of what is public (human) & private (wo|man).
a series of different views can be related:

GIF image



in this way, if the universal, the empirical
understanding and relationship with nature
was recontextualized by way of human relation,
it would allow humans of different viewpoints
to publicly relate as humans with different
views in a shared general context. whereas,
each as a private woman or man would be able
to have their private differences protected
from being generalized, to secure rights to
private domains, say with information. one
practical result of such a legal framework
would be with databases and data-mining...
imagine if all the 'private information' in
database fields could only list your name as
'human being' and thus a layer of anonymity
would protect a certain right to privacy.
being human, say if most had such aliases
for bureaucracies, would allow a standard
interaction not based on racial prejudice
or cultural prejudice if looking at data,
aspects of sex/gender/ethnicity/location
would not become the highest form of how
people can identify, communicate, think...
they would become details of a new shared
identity, language, logic which is public.
as it is nested, hierarchical, what is in
the private is also scalable so that if
two people share some private dimension,
that itself can become a public set of
relationships: say, commuter bike owners.

-- human scale --


(false)----------(unknown)----------(true)


concepts of scalability, public and private,
and relationships are what create foundation
for a new logical approach: paradox is able
to be dealt with through scale, bias can be
neutralized as unknowns co-exist with other
views, and words are as accurate as numbers
in modeling this way. computing is proof, as
this is how hardware/software relate in code,
venn diagrams are where such ideas intersect.


do you believe that present conflicts are hundreds years old?, what about
(new) problems of today? are there some centuries old people not
understanding new, modern people (or vice versa)

the ones i described, much likely a significant
amount of it is historical inheritance of past
biases found in culture, which effectively is
'programming' reality by automated development.

that is, ideas are codes of a sort, by which
actions are designed or outcomes of. how a
person or society develops is in relation to
how it programs itself to function, or is not
able to program itself, through education,
through thinking.

the code of civilization is totally buggy,
almost unusable, unless what works can be
adapted and reprogrammed by individual and
state coding to work together as one program:
the operating system (OS) of spaceship earth.

like with babylonian advances of civilization:

(technology, urban civilization, writing)

today's advances are basically the same, with
technology, globalism/global modernization,
and coding, which effectively replaces writing.

that is a continuum of the same civilization,
its shared public, human development, both to
inherit and to transform these, to contribute
them again into the larger civilization, and
imagine what the future developments will be
as technological civilization is coded anew...

the major shift in perspective is orientation,
relation to what is related and what can relate.
the west has to discover its past, and how it
needs the wisdom of the past to inform further
refinement and development; not just of the west
and its development but its relation to east,
north, south, everywhere, as contextualized in
place, in space, in the present, beyond time,
or where time coexists (spectrum of time).

for instance, with private realms, what if by
viewing time differently, that the split of
the Catholic, Orthodox, and Russian churches
were somehow to re-relate in the present day,
which learned from the centuries now passed,
and relate to the same region of shared ideas,
beliefs: Greek, Turkish, Russian, Roman, etc.
the publicness of a new perspective could allow
new relations, new progress, new insight, not
to go backward to live in the past, but to go
forward by understanding and appreciating it.
likewise with music or any number of ideas...


culture is discursive formation, it involves unconscious, and you cannot
rule over unconscious;
culture is not homogeneous itself (but becoming so with external danger:
other = other culture, in global world = other planet = alien)
it is the logic of exclusive society, maybe there is some effort to think of
inclusive society, to think of and to create some not known, empty space
where this meeting can happen, meeting of something not visible, which is
overlooked?..it takes some bravery ...


venn logic diagrams can help define and shape
concepts by which culture is and can be modeled.
understood, tested. SIMCITY is an example in its
own way of a correspondence between putting sets
of things in relation by way of modeling and using
artificial intelligence and programming to develop.

it is a paradigm shift that may have a threshold
in that there is no one human who is all humanity,
yet each access the shared commons with this view.
and the more who inhabit it, the more it is real.
maybe it is a leap of faith, thought it does not
seem that far away in lived experience, either.
it is only limited, bounded, by a lesser world-
view, and if the psychological (identity) can
be made to change or 'shift' perspectives' then
a change in what is perceived, what is real, is
possible to communicate about, through thinking
based in an accurate modeling of how this works.

the bravery would be everyone who makes efforts
and steps to achieve such gains, at risk and at
high cost. in this regard, the .US is a special
place that exists for just such possibilities.


in the meantime
remember Melvile and "Bartleby, the Scrivener": he answered the questins:
"I would prefer not to"
to his end, my be waiting to preserve open possibilities of choice...
jan-ez

yeah, maybe. i tend to believe that it is better to
live before one dies. if that is a life one chooses.
brian
Replies
Re: [design] preface: this modern world (1), Janez Koman
Partial thread listing: