Abstract Framework

[automatic existence]

Some things come before others, you must learn the alphabet before you want to write in common English. You must learn to master a computer before you can write complex software on it.

 

I think its the same with what we will call knowledge for simplicity´s sake. I.e. you must know that there is, is not or might be a God before you can start to discuss morals in relation to a God. Another example is that you must know numbers before you can add 2 and 2 to get 4. You must have learned about numbers and there inherent values. Also easily agreed upon, I think.

 

Lets say (the actual figures are irrelevant, its only the idea that matters) that on the top of this hierarchy of knowledge there are a couple of basic questions like; Does anything exist? These questions must be answered before any other question will make sense. Ultimate questions if you will. When those are answered, we get new possible questions like; What exists? And so on. All of these early questions are very abstract, non specific. You don´t need a PhD in physics to answer them. (IMPORTANT: That does not mean you can pull the answer out of your ear, I am talking about correct well founded answers, not guessing.) Therefore we must first answer these questions, then much longer down in the hiarchy comes concrete, specific questions like; What is a particle? and so on. Now we need a long education to answer those questions.

 

My point is this. "All" the abstractfirst questions have been answered adequately. We already know “all” that is important, searching further is pedantic and ignorant. Here is why. Most people don´t care what we actually know by now, but still want to find out more. They want to find out about aliens and cloning etc. That is absurd. And as long as you don´t accumulate what you learn and have learnt its meaningless to gather more knowledge. "Consumer Science so to speak."

 

I´m not saying we should quit with science, but that we should not focus on science as a

goal in itself, as we are now. Instead we should use it as a tool for understanding. I´m sure a lot of people think that is what we are doing, but its not. My biggest problem is that even most scientist aren´t consistent. That is, if we discover that something is like this, we care about its implications and continue like before without changing accordingly to what we found out. Its really irrelevant what we discover. This is at least my experience.

 

As I said, I believe most of the basic questions have been answered adequately already by the 1700th century, but note that nobody cared about that then either. Then after that, up until now, what has happened? As our society have, we have specialized. Narrowed everything down. Focusing on smaller details. Quantum Theory is a good metaphor. We don´t see the big picture because our age is so pedantic as can be. Again, I am not saying Quantum in itself is irrelevant, but as long as we don´t use what we could have learnt up until that, it really dosen´t matter if we understand it or not. I feel we have all the answers right in front of us and we strive to not notice them, and were hurrying on to find new answers. Its pathetic.

 

What I wish to do is to make a close to complete framework with these abstract questions. I don´t see the problem answering "big questions". From my point of view its fairly. A week of research on each question with a neutral mind and your done. If you against all odds should be wrong about something, you just update it later. What is really hard on the other side is specialized questions like how the brain works internally etc. It has taken, and will probably continue to take centuries to understand. But if we know all of the most important answers to basic questions, which we still evade, those will not be so important for us. Because we will already be close to enlightened.

 

 

My project from now on consists of gathering abstract knowledge and show how easy it is to answer all the “big questions” and base the answers in necessity. There can simply be no doubt, and anyone who follows from a to b will have to agree. I don think it will be that hard. This might sound like youthful exuberance, idealistic nativity or just a plain lack of understanding for how things work. That might be. But I have not yet encountered any reason to think so.

 

I might give a false picture of my task. Its all about collecting the most obvious evidence and take a solid stance on the most prominent questions. It will probably take some time, but think of philosophers and scientist who spent decades on something without really achieving anything, and also think of the ones who achieved great things. But the strange thing is that I notice that very few actually sees the forest for the trees. They don t mangedon´t want to realize what is obvious. Donatien Alphonse Francois De Sade is one of the few people I have encountered who really relies on fact when he draws his conclusions, even though the conclusions might be wrong, the facts isen´t. Here comes an important point. A separation between objective and subjective science (I guess I misuse that word a lot). A biologist might say that we are descended from animals. But he might still believe we are created by a God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. There we have the objective “truth” and what he himself believes. An enormously important difference. I.e. The Marquis can “prove” that there is no difference at all(not including anatomy etc. of course) between animals and humans. From that he might draw the conclusion that humans should seek nothing but pleasure for themselves. This is the isought. Humans are the same as animals – fact. Humans should only seek pleasure for them selves – belief.

I respect, though not agree with de Sade´s belief, but I love his facts.

(For anyone with the wits I would strongly recommend “Justine”, and “Philosophy in the Bedroom.”)

 

In reality I know why this actually shouldn't be at this forum at all. I just wanted to write to clear my mind and make space for new thoughts and I might have used this forum as a disguise to do so subconsciously. I really write for myself. I´ll try to remember that, and only share the laconic questions here.

 

To finish this rant, I´ll sum it up with this:

 

I find myself in dissonance with a greater and greater number of people. Before it was only with the ones who contested obvious facts, now I seem to great further and further away from the commonly accepted. Its chilling but still, I can not manage to do anything but what I believe in.

[infamous]

I beg for comments, critique and suggestions.

I think you'll have more success by shortening the length of your posts auto...., these long drawn out essays bore most of us. Here is the best advice I could give you: Say what you have to say with an economy of words without sacrificing major detail. If you do, I think you'll have much more success.

[automatic existence]

Point taken. I am very aware of the fact. If I felt the length was justified by the contents I would have left it as it is, but I feel I have trouble expressing myself in few words.

- Editing done