Contextualism
A New Philosophical Beginning - Contextualism
Context Based Philosophy - The goal of this methodology is to develop a philosophy that is not based on negatives. When centering our discussion on truth the evaluation of words, issues, ideas are primarily normative. That means once some idea is brought forward it is evaluated first by normative value considerations. Then the problem is that a lot of things cannot be evaluated for their usefulness because they are questioned on value before we know what they are, before we understand the meaning. The normative judgement are actually a cover for personal bias. The approach then hides extreme biases, but to criticize such bias activity also violates the normative issues. This is why we need to base our inquiry on meaning rather than truth.
There is a remnant of ancient concepts and ideas that relate to the necessity of some higher rule or justification. Kant called this the transcendental. Hegel referred to this as a need for greater abstraction. Ultimately the point is that this abstraction or transcendental has some authority over truth as compared to reality. This problem becomes serious when we agree there must be a transcendental but cannot agree on the specifics. This is particularly problematic when the abstraction over-rules other more substantial ideas. The transcendental is to be the final authority in philosophy. This is why we need to remember that reality is more important than theory [a broad reference to the abstract and transcendental]. There must be a connection to reality.
The usual approach is to follow some kind of structure. This is establishing the methodology to follow as we proceed. The problem with structured methodology is that the structure has too much to say about the results. It is like choosing a path before you know what the path leads to. Often more mature philosophers do know what the path leads to and use it on purpose since they desired that result. The path is a ruse for not being objective. This is why we need to base our effort on context rather than structure. Laying out the relationship of all our entities provides a special [woven] understanding of the context of the problem. We can follow a procedure but we can't forget the context.
The Manifesto of Contextual Philosophy
***************************************
Meaning
Meaning over Truth
When centering our discussion on truth the evaluation of words, issues, ideas are primarily normative. That means once some idea is brought forward it is evaluated first by normative value considerations.
The fact that Truth is the problem point in all Western philosophy does not prove they are all liars. It actually means that Truth, as defined by philosophers, is not real. It cannot be made real since there is a characteristic of the definition of philosophical Truth that means philosophic Truth will always be illusive. "Critique of Pure Reason" actually proved that. Philosophers have never accepted that proof. The problem is that you must instantiate an abstract class in order to have a general philosophy based on Truth; but abstract classes cannot be instantiated. Instantiating an abstract class trashes any truth tables you have.
The other issue with Truth as the basis of philosophy, is that Truth based anything becomes a normative nightmare very quickly. Everyone is soon condemned completely and that condemnation is used as a basis for control. So everyone's mind is enslaved in a network of what you can't do (almost everything is included in the can't do category). There is no room for discussion and a few blatant bullies take full control of all thought.
Meaning based philosophy is much more helpful in providing guidance and allowing discussion and agreement. To achieve such processing the basis must be Meaning and not just another form of Truth. Meaning is based on a set of relationships that are linked to the context (physical first, but includes mental objects that become familiar enough so they are tied closely to the real physical objects in our mind). Pivoting to the Context, rather than abstract Truth, insures a unification in understanding without the problem of singularity that is the only rendering of Truth relationships. Truth must be sigular. Truth makes everything into a cause for discipline and control; but not as a basis for understanding. The word "understanding" defines the use of Meaning in a way that it becomes a basis for discussion; and agreement.
Truth is deterministic and fixed. We may not know what it is fixed on right now. That is, whether we have the correct truth or if we have the incorrect truth (which is the more likely case), truth is fixed (in our minds). If it is not fixed it is not truth. It is either the truth or not the truth. There is no neutral territory with Truth. That is why it cannot be used as the basis for negotiation. That is why structuralists have problems with negotiating. It is high noon and the shootout at OK corral is beginning.
Meaning is not so locked and closed. There is freedom in meaning, (as compared to truth). Meaning is based on the abstract, but is not entirely abstract. In fact the center of a meaning is at least one real instance that becomes meaningful because it is extended in our mind from or to an abstraction (at least one abstraction). The abstract puts life into the meaning. And the abstract opens the possibility of flexibility. The real instance means we can talk about it since there is a reality that we can refer to. The abstraction in any references to that real, allows the freedom to negotiate.
[Truth is all abstraction - it is the abstract side of a particular and the link between associated items - so it does not have the arbitration between fact and abstract.]
Structured methodologies are defined to be singular. Contextual approaches allow, encourage, and even force a more polymorphic approach to the problem.
Mind using Pattern Recognition
The Cognitive Loop
Instantiated Extended Object for this Archetype
New Extended Node
Meaning Over Truth in the Program
My view is that polymorphism is the nature of language (all natural language). In such a polymorphic language, a item of the language needs to be objectified. That means the item (or the word for it) carries some attributes and processes into the conversation, These are not the meanings of that objectified item but define the character of the word or words used to convey that item in the conversation. The Meaning is derived from the polymorphic linkages in the context of associated memory objects in our mind.
In artificial intelligence work, in the beginning, Truth is based on truth tables of the design process. These are not abstract Truth (which would cause problems), but are tedious. When there is a change the Truth table needs to be read. But how much of the whole truth table must be read for “this” change? Have those truth table items been corrected with the change? Is that all the things that have changed (and were they changed in the Truth table)? I call the Truth table or “total processing” methodology the brute force approach. It is brute force coding and all the steps need to be covered with each change in the system. As these build up in complexity we do tend to fall back on philosophical methods to “abstract Truth”.
The issue is in the complexity of processing.
Meaning is a better way to abstract the relationship with reality than the abstraction of Truth. Meaning has a different way of deciding these issues, The advantage is that the Meaning based cross checks are with reality not with a secondary process that depends on updating the truth table and then reading the truth table (and controlling process for what part of the Truth table is involved).
In the mind the previous changes that we need to react to are made through the Archetype system so the changes (themselves) update the “reality” references that are part of the system. Any check through Meaning is current and real. We are checking through the system of our control (the Archetypes) so through the looking glass is easier. In a program, we can check the issues that are local to the new change directly with reality, which is more efficient than a Truth table.
The Shadow
The Shadow as part of the thought process is the link to our surroundings through our the most abstract class (the Shadow), which is the ultimate basis for all thought [Jung] (the base class of our compiler). Some might consider this class as a blank slate (which it might look like at first glance) but, as the arbiter of all thought, it has to have the capability to arbitrate our thoughts, as we develop them. Then the Shadow as our Thunk is also the Dealer. The data buckets above at the bottom of the four images are in the shadow. Each bucket is a Shadow class item.
The Shadow and the Archetypes are our link to reality. We need to understand how this link works so we can base our analysis and development on Reality rather than on Theory.
In the Program, this Shadow refers to anything that comes from reality in our process. In our mind this is a set part of completing an action. The change is made through the system that holds reality information (the Archetypes).
In a program it might be a loop that is run for each change, and just before a new change. With a Truth tale this would need to be run after each change, and update the Truth tells. Then we need to read the Truth table before the next change.
Conscious Mental Context
Interpretation and Translating of New Data
This is an interpretation step. We interpret the “best” meaning, based on the available polymorphs. This is a Meaning process not a Truth process. There is no Truth Table. A more complete explanation is covered under The Cognitive Loop in Harmonics, Interpretation and Polymorphism.
Philosophical Patterns in Present Practice
The philosophy of Gramsci is on the side of Truth. See: Truth is just a Chinese Lantern. The philosophy of Habermas is on the side of Meaning. See: Meaning over Truth.
The left in the USA obviously has the intent of making their arguments particularly unacceptable to any opposition (per Gramsci). The opposition must be destroyed - not compromised with. The opposition have violated some Truth because they - they don’t jump to orders from the Left, - like some slave. I have been there and know what is going on. That is part of why I retired from academia. It is not fun when hate speech from the Left is encouraged, based on "Truth"; but defending yourself from imbeciles is punished.
Habermas’ language techniques (The Theory of Communicative Action) have led to successful negotiations of important issues in Germany and Europe. I have found that when using the Archeological Layering of Foucault, to develop a less bias understanding of the issues, and combining that with Jurgen’s Theory of Communicative Action, to produce a result that is both more understandable and also useful in solving the issues on the problem, the solution is very effective in resolving all of the issues of the problem (See: Hermeneutics in Agile Systems Development). The is Meaning based process.
The problems we are trying to solve are solvable. But the left would rather hurt people than try to find a reasonable solution. You will reap the whirlwind, you will pay the price; if you even try to resolve these problems reasonably. The left shows hate and destruction and tries to blame conservatives, whites, white males, citizens, Americans, the middle class because we don’t just give in to all their hatred. I do not like living under their Truth based hatred.
See also: Polymorphic Linking;
And: Polymorphic Interpretation.
Reality over Theory
There is a remnant of ancient concepts and ideas that relate to the necessity of some higher rule or justification. Kant called this the transcendental. Hegel referred to this as a need for greater abstraction. Ultimately the point is that this abstraction or transcendental has some authority over truth as compared to reality. This is why we need to remember that reality is more important than theory [a broad reference to the abstract and transcendental].
Modern theoretic approaches are based on structuralism. This basis of thought pattern is an attempt to keep it consistent and simple so we can get duplication on discussing or testing a theory. The problem is, our problems are no longer simple. The lack of simplicity leads to difficulties in consistency.
Structuralism
The assumption of this theoretic approach is that the universe is structured; it also means that it is basically Newtonian. But much of the activity in the universe follows the processes of harmonics. In those cases the simplicity and consistency of Newtonian analysis does not apply. Harmonics does have its own simplicity and consistency but that is not Newtonian. The base line of reality (as the fundamental basis), needs to be extended since harmonics implies the existence of issues structuralism is not looking at.
The structuralist theory is always limited in how much it covers. That is because much of what is going is harmonics. So structuralism only covers little patches of theory, which leads to science being divided up into small separate segments so we can talk about each one of these parts (separately). Structuralism (or Newtonian-ism) does not ecer fit into covering large segments of reality in a solid continuous meaningful way for true analysis and development. And quite often the different segments of theory cannot discourse with each other.
Another large difficulty with our structured solutions to problems is the fact that we use Gramsci arguments to solve many of our problems. This leaves us with the difficulties of analyzing hegemony, and the resulting conclusions of hate. Gramsci analysis always aims at determining who we are to hate.
Hegemony
Hegemony is one of the constraints of Cultural Harmonics. If the constraints of our harmonics are right the middle class appears (this is an Adam Smith kind of magic in group processes). If the constraints are wrong then the middle class disappears (another kind of magic).
A big problem here is that PC hegemony constraints leave the middle class out of the solution. This is on purpose, since Marx wanted to get rid of the middle class because they (the Bourgeoisie) had too much freedom. And freedom cannot exist in socialism (see excepts from The Communist Manifesto).
Between structuralism and hegemony we have a problem with diving into the difficulties of a system. So we need to look at reality and let reality not theory be the basis of our analysis and development. Reality is related to Meaning.
Existentialism
The god who is me, that we formulate out of an internal leap of faith, is always questionable. Basing your life on a god who is me and a set of slogans that sound good, is rather simplistic and stupid. The slogans sound good because they fit in with what is currently popular; but what is popular right now is no basis for a lifetime and a total commitment. You may have to throw that set away in a week and start over with the new set of currently popular slogans. Being up-to-date means always being out-of-date.
The reality of the leap of faith is not the reality of mindfulness. Actually the leap of faith is not reality at all. Mindfulness is seeing and believing what is there in front of you; and accepting that set of things as at least a good part of Meaning (but not necessarily as Truth). Actually, the leap of faith is looking for Truth by making it up.
Trauma can rob you of Meaning. But leaping into some "sounds good" Truth is not really a solution to your problem. You need Meaning not Truth to solve these issues. Meaning can only come from a healthy dose of mindfulness. Reconnecting with the reality you fear is the only long term solution to your problem. Your options become a useful start toward recreating Meaning in your mind and life.
Present theoretic methods used at this time tend to be structured and based on singular methodologies. In order to have the methodology working with a polymorphic reality one needs to use concepts of meaning discussed previously and Wittgenstein language concepts which are polymorphic in nature. See more on this kind of methodology in Hermeneutics in Agile Systems Development.
The Shadow
In the Program, the Shadow refers to anything that comes from reality in our process. In our mind this is a set part of completing an action. The change is made through the system that holds reality information (the Archetypes).
In a program it might be a loop that is run for each change, and just before a new change. With a Truth tale this would need to be run after each change, and update the Truth tells. Then we need to read the Truth table before the next change.
See also: Polymorphic Linking;
And: Polymorphic Interpretation.
Context over Structure
The usual approach is to follow some kind of structure. This establishing the methodology to follow as wee proceed. The problem with structured methodology is that the structure has too much to say about the results. It is like choosing a path before you know what the path leads to. The path is a ruse for not being objective. This is why we need to base our effort on context rather than structure.
The mind has a way of producing mental objects out of the interpretation of external information. A fresh encounter with the outer world is analyzed by a neural network. The information is carried by nerves from the sensing point. These nerve signals are then filtered through neural networks.
I am proposing a polymorphic process, for the mind. This only requires that the minds polymorphism is polymorphism on steroids (the mind has a polymorphic freedom that no programming language yet has). I believe that the mind is polymorphism on steroids; the object orientation is just a feature of polymorphism.
This is a probabilistic process that is under constraints. The process is probabilistic but the constraints provide limitations so the result is controlled by these limitations. Thus the constraints prevent dissipation, and encourage meaningful results. The constraints in the young child are the archetypes. As we grow older our minds develop aggregate (abstract) classes that are useful as though they were archetypes. That is what learning is all about.
These constraints are key pivot points of a story. These constrain the mental process so that meaningful patterns result from the interpretation process. The meaningful patterns are stories or story parts that make sense. Our goal in interpretation is meaning (patterning) not truth. Thus the archetypes [abstract classes] are the basis of meaning as the new real [object] in memory is extended from one or more archetypes. The process is too fast to allow time for any kind of truth table. The archetype molds the thought into meaning.
In the mind the base class (and the most abstract) is the shadow. This is the abstract class of all abstract classes. This is how our compiler works. The archetypal region of thought is also tied to the world that our physical senses encounter. Thus we only understand the world from our senses as it is carried to our rational thought through the archetypal region. The Archetypes mediate our understanding of the physical universe [Jung].
The mind is polymorphism on steroids. The polymorphic links between the objects extended from an archetype (or set of archetypes) provides the meaning. The mind finds meaning through the polymorphic links in the minds context. This is how we have meaning. This is not about truth; again, there is no time and no methodology for a truth table.
The context is the transcendental.
Wittgenstein recognized that language itself does not support the force of atomic and immutable definitions. Structured design (of Systems Analysis and Design) was specifically developed to create a language (the structural design methodology) that could support such characteristics. But such characteristics do not actually fit into the real world. The real world is actually closer to our language than to structuralism. The early developers felt the computer would make our world scientific; but only the world inside the computer could be that kind of scientific.
Our cultures have developed languages that are pragmatic (useful) instead of “perfect”. Structuralism assumed a perfect world (the computer was going to bring about this perfect world) but computer processing really needed to fit the real world - see: “through the looking glass”. Structuralism may have been able to create a perfect world - but, as a matter of fact, that could not have been (and wasn't) related to a real world.
The important part for analysis and design is the context. The changing relationships to surrounding words and other elements cause the words we use to have a different context. We need to know that in order to analyze and design the system correctly. In these relationships - the context is the transcendental. Using a structured methodology puts the structure above everything else. Then, the structure replaces the context in defining the meaning (all the patterns of the system). This imposes a meaning onto the system before we understand the system.
Polymorphic Interpretation
Polymorphism is like shadow puppets dancing on a screen. As they pass through each other we can see “pattern or not” quickly. When there are enough pattern matches we have the understanding from the link. The patterns make sense (in other words: form their own pattern). What the link actually is, takes a little longer.
[Newtonian processes (structuralism) predicts none of the patterns that are there in the universe. The only true structuralist pattern is the normal distribution curve of random events. Constraints on distributions always cause patterns to form. The patterns ultimately follow a wave equation (a set of eigenfunctions). So these patterns make sense and are sense.]
We need to base our approach on the Context and not on Structure, since structuralism then overrides reality and leaves us with an approach that misses what is going on in the system in the name of replacing the reality with some structure that simplifies but cannot duplicate Reality.
The building blocks of the wave mechanical universe (Quantum and Harmonic) is the probability distributions and, particularly, the constraints on those distributions. This applies also to the harmonic universe. With the organ pipe the “output” is related to the length of the pipe (constraint); nothing else. Each different wave mechanical or harmonic system may have quite different constraints. And there are different kinds of probability distributions.
See also: Polymorphic Linking;
And: Polymorphic Interpretation.
*****************************************
When symbolism is more important than reality - there are no real answers - just symbols.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VDiUZ6P5pQ
Constraints and Distributions
Rainbands and Electron Orbits
The actual waves or harmonics might duplicate the constraints or some characteristic of the constraints but the waves are: output, properties, or attributes of the system; they are not the object or entity of the system. You only understand the system when you understand the probability distribution and particularly the constraints on that distribution.
See also: Foundations.
The wave mechanical universe (as well as the harmonic universe) is built on constraints on probability distributions. When you only look at the waves or particles that are attributes of the wave mechanical system, and do not clarify the constraints of the system; you are not understanding how this system is built.
Often, when the waves or particles are sought, it involves an excessive amount of energy to produce interesting new patterns. Such excessive high energy is meant to and does destroy the constraints on the system. So you are studying constraint-less patterns which only demonstrate patterns are there in an unreal, unconstrained system. Since the building blocks of the wave mechanical system are the constraints; you are definitely missing all the constraints. The constraints tell you how the universe is built.
This is what I mean by Chasing Rainbows. When you look at a rainbow, what you see, and where your see it, depends on where you are looking from. You cannot find the end of the rainbow since as you go in that direction the rainbow is moving. Its position, as you can view it, is relative to where you are. In wave mechanical systems similar issues apply. How you look for something determines what you find. The results of looking at the rainbows of wave mechanics is not a look at fundamental truth. It is a reflection of where you are coming from.
Stop chasing rainbows! Stop the extremely expensive chasing of rainbows!! Start looking at the constraints, which are the building blocks of the universe.
So the Polynesian sailors knew how to use the waves. They looked back at the constraints, This is a harmonic system. They saw the land masses and islands, and found a way to see those in the waves. I put it this way, the context is the transcendental. Looking at it from the Western structural view you see abstracts. The West is still trapped in the abstract. Western scholars really believe the abstract actually make sense. But the context, the boundaries and constraints, are the real and the local and that can guide you to meaning and beauty. That is how we Reverse Engineer the Universe via Post-Structuralism. After all, this is my hand; not yours
Rainbands and Electron Orbits
Object Oriented Mind
Reverse Engineering of the Universe
Hermeneutics in Agile Systems
Dr. Jerome Heath, Ph. D.
VALERIE BOOK BELOW
Hashtags: #philosophical, #meaning #truth #reality #theory #context #structure #contextualism #history #Foucault #Habermas