On the nature of our perceptions and the world that surrounds us . . .
Symbolization – The process of attaching sensually or intellectually indicative meaning to perceived objective reality.
Expression – The process of projecting symbolized perception outside of the self (here synonymous with “intent”)
-Just as some languages consist of words that refer to concepts unknown in other languages, so the disagreements between science and mysticism are a result of inconsistent translation.
-The realm of human perception is inherently larger than that which can be fully expressed.
Therefore, mysticism/religion (even as they are understood today), are indispensable, as they express the next level of our perception of objective reality (science being the step upon which we stand).
Just as physiological aberrations that do not work (do not increase representation in the gene pool) are bred out and cease to exist, so must the philosophies that do not work be abandoned.
It is possible to perceive and symbolize an experience while lacking any means of expressing that experience. Symbolization requires only a basis for comparison with previous (ly symbolized?) experiences or perceptions.
It is possible to perceive and experience while lacking any means of symbolization. These moments of perception become what we call the “religious experience,” which is the beginning of the road to the establishment of godhead.
Two related arguments:
1. There is no objective reality.
2. There is no objective view.
The difference between the two is that the “view” occurs after reality has been perceived, and is formed through the process of symbolizing an experience (a perception/interaction with objective reality).
So objective reality is that which has:
a. not been perceived but still exists.
a1. An object does not cease to exist without sentient perception of its existence. This can
be proven by videotaping any physical object and viewing the video at a later time.
Therefore, objective reality does exist
b. Been perceived but has not yet been symbolized.
b1. All sentient or semi-sentient entities perceive and interact with objective reality by
symbolizing its meaning in relation to themselves. Symbolization only becomes possible
once previous experiences have been accrued. At some point this process becomes
essentially automatic (in all life?)
Therefore, while objective reality is always present, it is essentially impercievable by any sentient or semi-sentient entity that has accrued previous experiences, nullifying the “objective view.”
Notes:
At what level of sentience? (ants, fungus, etc. What is the criteria? Cephalization.
What about infants? Lacking any previous experiences, do the newly born, or even pre-natal, have any means of symbolizing external stimulus? How long have I know that “red” is the color I see on my wall?
What about retarded people? Do certain types of disabilities necessarily maintain a more “objective view” as a result of the slowing/halting of the symbolization process? Autism. Subject/object interference.
Oct 12, 2006
Symbolization, Expression, and Objective Reality
The Dogmatic Paradox Principle
What is the nature of the word dogma, and how does one go about creating a system of philosophy that not only espouses non-dogmatic principles but also does so in a systematic, presentable form without falling into the use of dogmatic statements?
***
First, some definitions that will relate, all taken from Dictionary.com:
Dogma: 1. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. 2. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
Canonize: 1. To include in a literary canon. 2. To approve as being within canon law. 3. To treat as sacred; glorify.
Doctrine: 1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma
Archaic use: something taught; a teaching (n.)
***
Earlier discussions of these and other definitions have negated religion specifically. Dogma is any statement of absolute truth, whether it be moral, social, political, or scientific (though this is arguable in the modern world. Science knows this if nothing else: we know jack.)
***
New uses for other words:
Set: Also readable as paradigm. The philosophic paradigm is the set within which we are operating.
Subset: Conceptual groups arranged within the set, e.g. philosophic systems allowable within the larger paradigm.
Minutiae: All the various pieces of information that make up the framework of the paradigm. This works essentially as a conceptual filter for philosophic systems, or aspects of them.
***
In this light, the minutiae of the paradigm are in danger of becoming dogmatic statements. They are the keys to defining what is accepted within our paradigm, but by the very goal of the system must avoid making statements of absolute moral truth. Is this possible? Can we generalize our minutiae enough to avoid this dogmatic paradox?
It is an absolute truth that one should always question an absolute truth.
That is dogma. Or is it? This is not, I think, a question that can easily be examined without running in circles, so now we must move on to a different, but related question. Does it matter?
It seems that common consensus in the modern world is that dogma has entirely connotative meaning. Is there such a thing as good dogma and bad dogma? What would be the manner of determining such states, if they exist?
The key is generalization within the scope, I think, of what we know of the systems that promote life on this planet (and when I say life, I mean all life. I would hope weve moved beyond the fallacy of man being the center of the universe and the ultimate product of all creation shit is this dogma?!).
The Dogmatic Paradox Principle: A system of establishing paradigm filters that promote diverse inclusion by excluding those symbolic sets that work against said diversity. It is an absolute truth that all statements of absolute truth must be continually scrutinized for their adherence not only to their own standards of dogmatic delivery, but also to the very concepts of the Dogmatic Paradox Principle. This requirement applies to the Dogmatic Paradox Principle itself. Only in this way can any system of belief continue to support its workability within reality. Any dogmatic statement need not necessarily be proven true; it need only remain workable or valid en totale under constant scrutiny for the duration of its application.
I believe:
There is good dogma. There is very little of it there, but it is there. Good dogmatic principles are extremely inclusive, as they must be in order to foster a biological system whose strength is founded on diversity. There is also bad dogma, and there is much more of this than there is good dogma. Dogma in and of itself need not necessarily be avoided. It needs to be minimized. Accepted dogma must allow for the inclusion of various subsets within the paradigm it defines, and disallow the inclusion of subsets that work against that diversity.