The First Law

[imaginaryme]

Is the [URL="http://gregorysbfinite.blogspot.com/2009/12/law-of-anarchy.html]Law of Anarchy[/URL]. Not because I have "made" it, but because philosophy has decreed it, and the times demand it. Let us consider the birth of philosophy. In the beginning-

The first philosopher decreed, "There must be reason!" The second philosopher decreed, "There must be reason!" And in their agreement, the first assumption was born, that Reason was the Actual Reality that exists; created between them, and containing them. Let us fast forward to the end-

The universe is not Reason, but rather contains uncomfortable dualities. Schools of philosophy, the persistence of religion, wars of economic imperialism, capitalistic enslavement; and the application of Reason to Reality in the form of science can be stated simply in the form of wave-particle duality. These factors are a way to express the maxim, reality trumps logic. Let us agree to disagree.

Philosophy did not begin with a search for either reason nor logic. It began with a search for truth. Over time, this endeavor produced the unification of logic, truth and reality into the great Art of mathematics. It is through this art that we can easily see that which has been missing in philosophy for 2500 years - the Greater Truth reflected in the First Law.

F + F = T. Assume that those two first philosophers spoke falsely; yet Reason still exists as Actual Reality, and it can be seen that logic can still prevail, the world can still be reasonable, and the combined philosophy of human endeavor is superior to any theistic subjugation. This is possible through mathematical considerations. Philosophy understands the nature of axiom being used to construct logic. These axioms are expressed in the form of "self-evident truths." But what may not have been considered is the sum of an infinite series, as in T + T + T ... (ad infinitum) = T; yet rest assured, this is the Great Work of philosophy. It is the implication of this infinite series that links all forms of "higher thought;" the sciences to the schools of philosophy to the purest of theistic intentions - the drive towards unity. Yet, for all that has been accomplished, division remains. Thus, we as individuals and groups are all following the advice of the Buddha in seeking a "return to the source." Here is the revelation. Only philosophy can truly return to such a source. Consider the terms "law of anarchy" as a self-evident truth, and all is revealed. The drive towards unity has produced forms of division. Capitalism has produced economic slavery to the financial masters. The need to be right demands others be wrong. Creating law creates anarchy. How does one separate fact from fiction? With truth. Truth only exists in philosophy. Truth is only expressed in mathematics. This is how "being" unifies with "becoming" - any other "higher power" makes us less. This is not acceptable. We are what we are, we will be what we will be; and that will be the truth. There is no other "absolute truth" beyond the fact that the truth is absolute. This is what Great Secret is revealed in the summation of an Infinite Series of Truth tells us about Unity through understanding the source. God is beyond understanding, the tao is beyond understanding; yet philosophy has a beginning that can be understood. Truth was created from the mind of reason. The true path of philosophy can be seen in a summation of truths, and can be expressed through philosophy with the law of anarchy as in no other school of thought:

Let us agree to disagree, but let us agree to a reasonable world.

 

[biomystic]

"Assume that those two first philosophers spoke falsely; yet Reason still exists as Actual Reality, and it can be seen that logic can still prevail, the world can still be reasonable, and the combined philosophy of human endeavor is superior to any theistic subjugation. This is possible through mathematical considerations"

The first Law should be to consider Godel's Proof which proves there is no such thing as logic and as for reason ruling society, the world saw what happened when "Reason" ruled Paris.

 

[imaginaryme]

It was in considering Godel's proof that led me to consider if anything has been proven. What is smoke and mirrors to to philosophy, I ask. Smoke being the self-referential statement, mirror being the intentional negation; is this philosophy or mere "mental masturbation"? Consider these statements: R, S, and T. Statement R is - Statement S is false. Statement S is - Statement R is false. Statement T is - Both R and S are true statements. How does R + S = T in terms of the simple truth table? With the consideration of simultaneous processing. If one processes the meaning of R before S, or S before R, one produces a table such that T + F = F. What happens when we consider these statements simultaneously? We get both T + T = T and F + F = T.

Anarchy, I say!

 

[biomystic]

It was in considering Godel's proof that led me to consider if anything has been proven. What is smoke and mirrors to to philosophy, I ask. Smoke being the self-referential statement, mirror being the intentional negation; is this philosophy or mere "mental masturbation"? Consider these statements: R, S, and T. Statement R is - Statement S is false. Statement S is - Statement R is false. Statement T is - Both R and S are true statements. How does R + S = T in terms of the simple truth table? With the consideration of simultaneous processing. If one processes the meaning of R before S, or S before R, one produces a table such that T + F = F. What happens when we consider these statements simultaneously? We get both T + T = T and F + F = T.

Anarchy, I say!

There is no such thing as anarchy. What passes for "anarchy" is hierarchy at the unwritten level of control. Words are cheap and action always speaks louder. I follow God who gave me the world's best philosophical paradigm without seeking anything more than a holistic way of defining social activism from personal experience putting "thesis-praxus-thesis" into practice to come out with a new synthesis.

 

[imaginaryme]

There is no such thing as anarchy. What passes for "anarchy" is hierarchy at the unwritten level of control. Words are cheap and action always speaks louder. I follow God who gave me the world's best philosophical paradigm without seeking anything more than a holistic way of defining social activism from personal experience putting "thesis-praxus-thesis" into practice to come out with a new synthesis.

"A holistic way of defining social activism from personal experience putting "thesis-praxus-thesis" into practice to come out with a new synthesis..." Wow. As an imaginary anarchist, I feel compelled to ask; is it "personal experience" causing you to speak in such a convoluted manner?

Take no offense. In a minute I'm gonna go look stuff up, but before I do, I would ask whether or not "anarchy" exists in common conception enough to say "it is a fancy term for 'burn it all'?"

 

[imaginaryme]

Did you spell "praxus" incorrectly, or am I on the wrong page? If you speak of praxis; I am interpreting your words as, loosely; theory-practice-theory... as such, I find nothing disagreeable in your philosophy. As if the opinion of an imaginary, self-styled "philosopher of the newly-minted school of anarchy" has any bearing on reality...

I used to hate philosophy because I'd get into these arguments with these "over-educated, smug, intellectual atheist-types" who would use pure logic as a tool to say, "I am right because you don't understand the formalized rules of my language well enough to compete with my-oh-so-obvious superior intellect;" and once upon a time I was content with sporting my Tickle-derived IQ of 141 to get offended when others implied that I was stupid.

Then a miracle happened, and I understood philosophy in a whole new way. My personal philosophy evolved thusly - I call myself a mathematician, yet, if I go to the store because I am hungry; I don't "become" a shopper, I'm still a mathematician.

And then I went online and learned stuff, gaining a whole new respect for philosophy in general and the concept of building from first principles in particular; and as a measure of my new-found respect, dared not even consider myself a philosopher until I found my very own first principle. And in the manner of exuberant greenhorns everywhere, Capitalized it into The Law of Anarchy.

So perhaps we do agree - anarchy was meaningless until this fool stepped forward to give meaning to otherwise useless terminology. Or perhaps I've just become a more complete idiot by speaking out the side of my neck of things I have no hope of fully understanding, which is still OK in my book. I'm still full of my "one happy thought," of rejoining the human race by walking down the street wearing a black shirt proudly sporting the "a in a circle" symbol I had assumed was widely understood by my fellow man...

But I could be wrong. That reminds me... I gotta go shopping.