A New Beginning

It is generally the belief of enlightened society to see itself as objective and rationale. We see our science as open minded, and welcome to divergent thinking. We believe our views are based in evidence, our ideas validated by experience, and that our science is the product of a cumulative process. Yet we must ask the question, is this just another dogma of the modern era? We live in a tradition that rejects all preconceived value as a bias towards an imperfect past. Yet this in turn becomes a new bias and a new tradition, which in turn must be rejected. This leads us to a never ending tide of nihilism.

Western society has been grounded in the tradition of the scientific method. This generally follows five basic steps. We determine a problem, we hypothesis a solution, we test the hypothesis, determine if the hypothesis led to the appropriate conclusion, we see if the problem is resolved, and then reevaluate the problem in relationship to the new data obtained. In this process we believe that we are objective. And this has lead to many wonderful and very positive results. We have landed on the moon, dissected the atom, advanced the information era. And yet with all this, we have never solved the riddle of human happiness.

Walled in by the dogma of a post modern society, we are ever looking for a new answer, somewhere that no one has ever looked before. Because somehow, maybe there is a creative spark just around the corner, and if we just reinvent the wheel we might find it. Perhaps it is time to see the world from a new direction.

In ancient times the world was seen as a mandala. We see it in the elements of the five rings. Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, and the Void. These correspond to different ways of seeing the world. It is in this that we can escape the prison of the paradigm that surrounds us.

Earth, a series of thought. Starting from the beginning, and following through to the end. It is the body of the book of strategy. Here we see the outline off all that is to follow. In this we see the four professions. The farmer who surveys the circle of life. The merchant who values commerce. The artisan who builds. The warrior, who's nature is two fold, the path of the sword, and the path of the pen.

Water, Parallel thought, the spirit. This is the element of science. Ever adapting to the changing needs of the moment. It is perhaps the most powerful of the elements, and yet it is limited in force. It is forever tied to the paradigm of what is known, and what is believed. As such it is subject to all the forces that surround it.

Fire, Creative thought, divergent thought, not limited to context. This is the book of fighting. To master it requires research, daily practice. Through discipline one becomes free from the self. What is big is easy to perceive, what is small is difficult to perceive.

Wind, Schizoid thought. Going round and round without going anywhere. This is the realm of tradition. How can one know themselves, if they do not know others? To see the future, one must see the past.

Void, Intuition, the sudden jump to a conclusion. No beginning or end. This is the way of nature. If what seems correct is not the way of nature, then it departs from the way. Know the spirit and the foundation.

A Comedy of Errors

Time is a bankrupt, and a thief. Have not you heard that time comes stealing on by night and day? It is a riddle as old as the desert sands. To whence it is said the greatest comedy, is that every life is tragedy. So it was that fateful day, on the distant shores of Ephesus. An old man there found his way, and by doom of death made haste to end his passing days.

“Merchant of Syracuse,” the Duke said, as he drew near. “Plead no more, for it is our law that no man from our rival city set foot upon these shores, lest he sacrifice all his goods and pay tribute of a thousand marks. Therefore by law, thou art condemned to die.”

“Yet this is my comfort,” the old man said. “For when your words are done, my woes end likewise with the evening sun.”

The guards gathered round, as the Duke sat astride his steed. “This is most curious indeed. Say in brief that cause that brought thee to this distant land. Why would you risk your property, your life, and all the world that you see? What brought thee to Ephesus?

The old man looked up at the Duke. “A heavier task you could not impose, and yet I will tell you of my grief, the heavy burden that I bear. For I was not always as you see now. Like all, a younger man once was I, and a beautiful wife did I wed. We were happy together, and yet, as a merchant, so oft did I travel, that she desired that together we should be. So I sent for her to join me in Alexandria. It was not long after that she gave birth to sons, a set of twins, so alike, that none could tell them apart. Twas that same night, at the self same inn, another woman died in birth, yet she to gave birth to twin boys. So we took them as our own, to watch over as the servants of our sons. My wife, proud, wished to return home, and so together, we set sail to Syracuse.”

“As we made our way, past the distant Straits, like Odysseus, the Gods then played their trick upon us. For upon the deep, a mighty tempest swirled with the rage of Poseidon, tearing our ship asunder in its mighty wrath. In my arms, I held two of the boys, my wife the other. That was the last I saw of them. For cast into the sea, I held onto the boys, for what seemed an eternity, when to my good fortune, we were rescued by a passing ship.”

As the years passed, my son set sail for Delphi, where the oracle foretold his brother was still alive, and so with his servant, they wandered the many shores, to find his long lost twin, so that he might at last be as one. That was many a year ago, and I have not heard of him since, and so I boarded a ship, in search of them, until I landed upon these distant shores.

Moved by his story, the Duke answered. “I take pity upon you, and yet the law is the law. It cannot be forsaken. Yet I will favor you as I can. I give you this day, find what friends you can, and if you can pay your ransom, then I will set you free. So beg or borrow what you can. Do this and live, if not, then on tomorrows eve, thou art doomed to die.”

“Hopeless though it seem, I will pray that the Gods thus deliver me.” Bowing his head in humility, the old man followed the guards to the distant cell by the sea.

Putting the book down, Sherlock Holmes took his pipe, and slowly filled it. “Now Dr Watson,” he said, “You have asked me many time on the art of deduction, on how it is that I arrive at a given conclusion. Well I have given this much thought, and I have found inspiration from the immortal bard. The comedic writings of Shakespeare, where he delights his audience with the absurdity of confusion and contradiction.”

“It is of much interest to me,” the doctor answered. “When I hear you give your reasons, the thing appears to me to be so ridiculously simple that I could easily do it myself, and yet at each successive instance of your reasoning, I am baffled until you explain, and yet my eyes are as good as yours.”

“Quite so,” he answered, lighting his pipe. “you see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps that lead up to this room.”

“Frequently.”

“How often?”

“Hundreds of times”

“How many are there?”

“How many? I don't know.”

“Quite so, there are 17,” Sherlock answered. “You have seen and yet you have not observed, and this brings me back to the comedy of errors. As the audience, in the first scene, you have observed. You know the secret riddle in which our characters are plunged. It is they who only see, and so find themselves in an absurd mystery, in which everything they know is false.”

“Indeed,” Dr Watson answered. “I am familiar with the play. If I recall, that same day Antipholus, and his servant, who was he? Roger Daltry?, No it is Dromio, I believe, that was his name. They arrive at Ephesus. And there they meet Adriana, the wife of his brother, and yet she knows him not.”

“To me she speaks,” Sherlock laughed. “What was I married to her in a dream? Or sleep I now, and think I hear this? What error drives my eyes and ears amiss? Until I know this uncertainty, I'll entertain the offered fallacy.” And so they are dragged off to dinner.

“In the meanwhile,” Watson continued, “across town the brother has a chain commissioned from the local goldsmith. For this he is charged a thousand marks, for which his servant must retrieve. It seems most curious, that both brothers are of the same name.”

“It is elementary, my dear Watson, they were separated at birth. Since they looked the same, both mother and father called them by the eldest name.” Finishing his pipe, Sherlock continued. “This brings me to the task at hand. How is it that we know that something is true?”

“Through science,” Watson exclaimed, quite pleased with himself.

Sherlock began to rummage through his drawer for his hidden stash. “Which science is that, the one of Euclidean astronomy, where the Earth is at the center of the universe, or that of Copernicus where the Earth orbits the sun?

Watson pondered the question. “Are they not one and the same? It is puzzling, that this is so, and yet the two take such contrary conclusions. They cannot both be true.”

“Very good,” Sherlock answered, having found his stash. “Then what does this tell us about science?”

“That the goal of science is to find truth, and that it is not truth in and of itself?”

“Indeed, it is the purpose of science to find justified true belief. This is what we would determine in the words of Aristotle, to be knowledge. In this process we develop a theory, and then we seek to determine if it is true.”

“How So?”

“We determine if it is a better explanation for the facts.” Sherlock filled his pipe once again. “To this end we must satisfy five basic criteria.”

“The first is test-ability. If our theory, or hypothesis is true, then in a given set of circumstances, we would expect the following results. This is what we call the process of experimentation. Of course we must be careful not to give an ad hoc explanation to align our theory with the results. If our theory cannot produce the predicted results, then our theory is in error. The second is that our hypothesis is useful. It must lead to correct predictions, or it is of no value. The third criteria is the scope of the theory. It must lead to the most correct predictions in the greatest number of circumstances. Our fourth criteria, is simplicity, or as stated in Occam's Razor it is futile to do with more things that which can be done with less. Our final criteria is conservatism. Our theory should not contradict that which is already known.”

“I see,” Watson agreed. “which brings us back to our story. If I recall, there is a mix up, and Dromio retrieves the thousand marks, and then gives it to the wrong brother. So when the jeweler seeks payment, Antipholus has not the funds, and so he is thrown in jail where he meets his long lost father.”

“Then we discover the hidden truth,” Sherlock answered, puffing on his pipe. “It is the inherit problem of knowledge. Gettiers dilemma. Dromio gave Antiphulos the thousand marks. There is justified true belief, and yet it is not knowledge. Because depsite all his best intentions, he gave the thousand marks to the wrong brother. Hence we have truth, and not truth at the same time.

“That is most puzzling indeed”

“One that has plagued humanity throughout time.”

“Then how should we determine truth”

Sherlock set down his pipe. “In the story, the father recognizes his son, yet his son knows him not. As he tells his tale, he mentions the name of his wife, who serves now as a nun in the abbey, it is the old temple of Diana, where it is legend that the Virgin Mary spent her final days, in Ephesus, a city of deceivers and witchcraft, the Apostle Paul says. It is the city where John the Baptist is beheaded in the Gospels. Upon hearing her name, the truth is revealed, and she is summoned. Together they sit down and the story is told to the Duke, and he forgives the old man his debt. The family is united, and they live happily ever after, which brings us to the moral of our story. The virtue ethics of Linda Zagzebski.”

Knowledge is a justified true belief that gets to the truth rather than the falsehood, because of the intellectually virtuous motives and behavior of the believer.

Ten Lessons From History

1) We do not learn from history, and there are tragic consequences in result.

2) Science, technology, a global economy, or even the information super highway does not make us immune from the cycles of history

3) Freedom is not a universal value. It only flourishes in special times and places

4) Power is a universal value

5) The Middle East is the graveyard of empire

6) It is the destiny of empires that they rise and fall in the eternal cycle of history

7) Religion and Spirituality are the most profound influences on history

8) Empires rise and fall because of the decisions of people. Leaders shape history by the decisions that they make. The more powerful the nation, the more profound are the consequences of these decisions.

9) In times of crisis great leaders emerge.

10) America has had a unique role in history. It can guide humanity into the future if it learns from the lessons of history

Freedom is Slavery

One of the principle goals of modern society has been the expansion of freedom. The underlying issue has been a conflict as to what freedom actually means. In answer, western society has taken two basic stances. The first was championed by John Stuart Mills in his discourse on liberty. In this view, freedom exists in the absence of coercion. He famously argued that the rights of the individual extend to the point where they infringe upon the rights of another. The Second was that of Jean Jacque Rousseau in his social contract. He held that freedom was the right of self-determination. While these things seem mutually compatible, in practice they are antithetical views, where the counterpart is viewed as tyranny.

Mills was an advocate of British empiricism, and free trade. He held with Adam Smith, that the greatest freedom would be found in spontaneous order. That guided by the invisible hand of market forces, prices would be regulated by the random interaction of self-interest. It was an economy that valued production through vice. In this new world, there was no need for tradition, or nobility, or even God to guide human affairs. The merchant would rise, as a new middle class, that would guide humanity into the future. And this was the ideal of the modern man.

Rousseau would have none of it. He was of the firm opinion that when humans left the trees, that was generally a bad idea. He said nothing that mankind had accomplished with their science and technology was of any value whatsoever. Primitive life is superior to modern man in every aspect.

In response Voltaire Wrote

"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it. Nor can I embark in search of the savages of Canada, because the maladies to which I am condemned render a European surgeon necessary to me; because war is going on in those regions; and because the example of our actions has made the savages nearly as bad as ourselves."

To Rousseau, the first evil was ownership. That possession had led to humanities loss of innocence. In a natural state, equality was the proper state of society.  With ownership came a sense of dependency between the master and the servant. This lead to a growing alienation, because the love of self was replaced with the concept of social status. This lead to our sense of consumerism, and the need to maintain our image within society. To this he said

 Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains

The solution he devised was the social contract. That humanity must enter into a self-ruling community based on equality.  That we would work together to serve the community, and not individual interest. This leads to the underlying question of Freedom.

Can a wealthy drug addict be free?

JS Mills would answer yes. They can afford the habit. They only hurt themselves. They are not being coerced into bondage, they have chosen this lifestyle of their own accord.

Rousseau would answer no. The true self is identified by what is best for the community. By taking drugs, they are diminishing their role in society, and surrendering their freedom to self-interest and vice. So by taking corrective action, we are setting them free.

So we have our contradiction. A freedom of individual action, and the freedom of society as a whole. This has lead to all sorts of problems within our popular political debate.

The Great Learning

Confucius

Written ca. 500 B.C.E

What the great learning teaches, is to illustrate illustrious virtue; to renovate the people; and to rest in the highest excellence.

The point where to rest being known, the object of pursuit is then determined; and, that being determined, a calm unperturbedness may be attained to. To that calmness there will succeed a tranquil repose. In that repose there may be careful deliberation, and that deliberation will be followed by the attainment of the desired end.

Things have their root and their branches. Affairs have their end and their beginning. To know what is first and what is last will lead near to what is taught in the Great Learning.

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.

From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.

It cannot be, when the root is neglected, that what should spring from it will be well ordered. It never has been the case that what was of great importance has been slightly cared for, and, at the same time, that what was of slight importance has been greatly cared for.

While never achieving great success in Life, Confucius is remembered as one of the great teachers of all mankind.

In the great learning he points to the interconnectedness of all things. A good ruler requires an ordered state, family, an ordered self, a rectified heart, sincerity of thought, and the extension of knowledge from the investigation of things. One thing leads to another. When all are in harmony, the kingdom is successful.

 When asked to explain in one word how we should live, he answered Reciprocity

 a basic principle of Confucian ethics that says not to do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

The teachings of Confucius can generally be summarized in the five virtues

Ren: Benevolence, charity and humanity

Yi: honesty and uprightness

Zhi: Knowledge

Xin: faithfulness and integrity

Li: correct behavior, propriety, good manners, politeness, ceremony, worship

The Search for Truth

The search for truth begins with the knowledge of ones own ignorance. As Socrates would argue, it is in knowing what it is that we do know, and subsequently what it is that we do not know. This was likewise a theme of Confucius in the Great learning. The question is asked, what does it mean to be a great ruler? Through a lengthy chain it leads ultimately to the understanding of things, which leads back to the beginning, the goal of being a great leader.

So it is, from completely foreign perspectives, we find the same themes originating at separate places across the world. These would continue to perplex mankind throughout history. A desire for knowledge, for understanding, and the challenge that this presents.

It was Hume who would ultimately present the paradox. That our knowledge of the world is derived from experience. From a process of induction through enumeration, we can arrive to a general understanding, however there is nothing in our experience that can affirm with certainty that this would be so. Hence we must conclude that there is no knowledge that is certainty.

Thus defined, we are left with one of two conclusions. That there is truth, or that we live in a universe without truth. The latter is completely non sensical, so in order to have any understanding, we must start with the assumption that there is truth. This ultimately leads us back to the conclusion of Descartes, and the principle of Cartesian doubt. Cognito Ergo Suma, I think therefore I am.

This leads Kant to his conclusion in the Critique of pure reason. That while it is impossible to know a thing in and of itself, we are predisposed to reason. For instance, if one were to draw two parallel lines, they would have to be at precisely the same angle, or they would eventually intersect. To know for certain, we would have to draw an infinite number of lines, yet that would be impossible. We just know this to be true, because we are predisposed to being rational beings.

While Kant solved the problem of Hume, it was purchased at a price. That is why he is called the great destroyer. We can never know the thing in and of itself, only the perception of being. So while we can know that there is truth, that there is a universe outside our perception, that it acts in accordance to the laws of nature, we can only know our perception of this universe, and not truth in and of itself.

Flotsam And Jetsam

Its been a long time since I wrote for my blog. Of course it has been a busy year. I left last year on a new adventure, a new profession. It has been good to me. For the first time in my working life, I have financial security, and despite the hours, I enjoy driving. I see much of the country, and it gets a little smaller everyday. I imagine in 20 years, it will be like the back of my hand.

 Of course, one of the benefits of driving, is that I spend a lot of time studying. I listen to audio books in route, and I spend my days with the greatest minds of all time. This has given me a new perspective on how to continue.

Of course, I have been writing in the meanwhile, pen and paper.  I’ve never been good about editing though and I prefer a free flow of thought. In this regard, the blog has always worked well. Perhaps, one day I will publish, for now, this gives me a daily exercise. At least that is my new plan. To write a little every day. I have a new computer, and Microsoft word, and I will go from there.

I can’t say that anyone will ever read my blog. I’ve never been good at social networking. I don’t care to advertise, and I don’t really need to. I’m not doing this for a living. I write to focus my thoughts. To know what it is that I believe, what it is that I actually stand for.

This is a quality that is so often lost in pop society. We float around in the flotsam of the daily headlines, and we never know ourselves. It is just a whisper in the darkness, always present, yet somehow lost in the shuffle.

So with this in mind, I have returned to my blog, in the hopes, that perhaps, I might find myself. And maybe in the course of my journey, others will join me, and take comfort, that there is another, out there, wandering about, for the smallest glimpse of truth.