Transphilosophy
There is no value. There is no right and wrong. There are no choices. Ignorance is not an item for ridicule; rather, it is encouragement disguised as learning-stutters. The world is drenched, literally, in points of views unprejudiced to who views them. To not appreciate one point of view as much as another leads to conflict.
Since the beginning of knowledge collecting(learning), there has been a balancing act between the outlook of good and the outlook of evil. They’re both points of view and much of human history is dotted with imbalances between them. The balance between good and evil happens when neither are appreciated more than the other. It is evil when good is more than evil and is also evil when evil is more than good. And good is when good and evil are balanced.
These simple misuses of appreciation between the two have been debated upon on massive scales and on the personal level to dictate what knowledge had merit amongst an infinite array of points of view. For example, the knowledge of iron plus that of fire gave an infinite array of points of view but due to points of view valued more than others, like that of long-lasting imbalances between ancestral countries and over-valued ideals, military knowledge narrowed the possibilities of iron and fire to armor, canons, spears, and swords.
The optimistic point of view could hold claim that if so and so country didn’t raise weapons, our lives now wouldn’t be as they are. That’s so very true. But to think of it this way, Mr. Or Mrs./Miss-optimistic, if imbalances between two countries were resolved and the point of view of peace prevailed, the culmination of steel would have revolutionized the world a whole-lot sooner. Even the light bulb could have been discovered before Columbus came to the Americas. And maybe space travel could have been used to get humans to another part of our galaxy.
But alas, that is just an example. A point of view postponed. By now, you might have forgotten the word Transphilsophy. Rightfully so as all the before-said is merely a part of what makes Transphilosophy beyond philosophy. Philosophy is an outlook containing many points of view. From itself alone, many of those points of view became outlooks on their own. Math was borne from the point of view of logic. Ethics was borne of the point of view gathered from the actions taken by conscious beings. Physical science was borne of the point of view that sustains our need to understand how something works in our environment. Metaphysics was borne of the inward-looking point of view of philosophy that has its own language to describe the abstract meaning of existence and that of reality. Though these four make up the cornerstones of philosophy, the love for knowledge/wisdom has somewhat dwindled between the many points of view and fields of study. A mathematician can theorize, with numbers and models, how far someone falls when in love but cannot describe it. If and when they can, it can be clearly speculated that hey are not a mathematician first but a philosopher always.
Throughout our lives, the appreciating tug-o-war between what to believe as good or bad and what to keep pushes us towards a destiny. And to better understand that destiny is where Transphilosophy comes in.
Imagine a world where there are no boundaries, no hunger, no war, no possessions but that of a sense of community. A world where seeing eye-to-eye means you’ll contemplate till the next conversation so that you might learn something new or teach. If it sounds John Lennon-esque… good. Transphilosophy is, by my definition, the all-encompassing appreciation for philosophy’s many points of view as well as with any other field of study. Now… a background of how Transphilosophy came about.
My answer for Aristotle’s ‘Uncaused Cause’ gave way to concepts of the consciousness. Instead of joining Aristotle and Plato with arguments that an initial cause must exist, I began looking for the initial cause itself. And before I get ahead of myself, it simple started with “What is the meaning of life?” I first considered that all things are alive by the universal observation of exchange between the parts of an atom to be “life” with energy’s movement. And energy is what I considered the action between parts, or what is more easily known as friction. Friction, therefore, by its combining and separating function, vamped my search enough to change the question to “What is the meaning?” and “Why is there meaning?”. The latter question helped me out of being stuck when I studied the periodic table of elements. I noticed that from left to right, elements gained electron shells as they become more stable and noble gases were the most stable; or stable enough to be considered by chemists as inert. From this I gathered that all atoms, within any structure, had the main goal throughout their existence to lose itself indiscriminately with the atoms of other structures to the point where friction, or life, didn’t matter. After a short while of considering universals to better describe this “main goal,” I came up with “assimilation.” And after that I decided that there are two types of assimilation: One is inevitably the complete type where all things reach the inert state and the second being the separation of structures at the whim of friction; also known as incomplete assimilation and is the physically represented world, i.e. lamp, door, vehicle, wall, and “living” things.
But the “Why is there meaning?” came up again. I started thinking about assimilation on a beyond-molecular level to the abstract itself. I was thinking about what really justified or noted separation as the opposite of assimilation. Then it hit me… my thinking this was an assimilation of one thought with another and many others to create or complete the abstract equivalent of the inert state as omniscience. With each though is a point of view eager to assimilate with another. And with the above said question still in mind, the points of view needed sources to be a point of view from whence to be viewed. It implied a multitude of consciousness to house the points of views and from the point of view of the literary device of personification, the analogy of the human consciousness melted away into the universal that all things are conscious. Separation, therefore, is the point of view describing all incomplete assimilations such as: a rock, a building, a cloud, a vehicle, etc,. Incomplete assimilations are structures ‘in medias res’ and are made up of an amount of points of view but not all. A vehicle, for instance, is made up of the points of view of: the wheels, axle system, drive chain, engine, transmission, gear shift, emergency brake, seats, cup holders, dashboard, glove box, display panel, steering wheel, seatbelts, radio, windshields, bumpers, doors, headlights. All of these points of view were drawn to one another by assimilation. Even the point of view of travel means nothing by itself, just like every other point of view in a vehicle. You could think of it this way, you yourself are an incomplete assimilation. But it doesn’t end there. As you read this word to these next few and eventually to this comma, you are assimilating. Your point of view of walking assimilates to the point of view of the floor beneath your feet as it assimilates with the walls, ceiling, and blueprints to the point of view of a shelter. As I’ve mentioned before of outlooks, incomplete assimilations are totality-outlooks when you stop and realize the assimilation. The amount of incomplete assimilations you have govern how you see the world. How you see the world governs how you assimilate; at what rate. And if you see the world with a totality-outlook made up of the points of view of science, you can only appreciate the intricacies of the point of view of the scientific method and the mechanics of how something works as opposed to why it works. To appreciate more than the how it works requires more points of view than just science. When studying the mechanics of a clock, you aren’t just an observer to a mastered set up of cogs and gears, you are a participant. You are a part of what you study: you are not apart from it. This equality created by all things having a consciousness and ultimately a point of view as willing to assimilate as you are is the basis for Transphilosophy. And the basis itself answers the “Why is there meaning?” question.
I look at it this way; all things happen for a reason, have happened for that same reason as they will happen for that same reason and no other reason. We’re here because we’re here and if we weren’t there wouldn’t be a point of view that we aren’t here or theories speculating at the reasons we’re not here as expression wouldn’t be here either. No assimilation. Inert. And since we’re here, we can speculate and theorize at the points of view of what it would be like to not be here.
But the above said paragraph was, in no way, a favoring speech towards nihilism. ^_^ It was however a launch pad for this paragraph on Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause.
Why is there meaning? Thought. The answer to life: thought. The answer to the universe: thought. The answer to everything: thought. Instead of thought meaning a product of mental activity; consider thought to be the infinitely-inert and omnipresent energy. If I were wrong, I wouldn’t be able to write this very sentence in this very notebook with this very pen for you to be able to read it with your very eyes or wouldn’t be able to slowly convince you that all things originated from thought. Besides, it would be literally inhuman to believe me.
Consciousness. One of the many structures created. It alone facilitates thoughts. You, being conscious, could very well deny what I’m suggesting because you yourself cannot fathom what I can seeing as we both are conscious. You could go about your life, smiling on cue, cashing your paycheck; but how long will you go on ignoring the question of why you do any of it? Will you confide in the spiritual messages that you’re alone and that your life is what you make it? Will you look back on your life and only count the happiness?
And to think, the above paragraph is just a thought. There is no value. There is no right or wrong. There are no choices. Ignorance is not an item for ridicule; rather, it is encouragement disguised as learning-stutters. And there it is, Transphilosophy, the all-encompassing appreciation for philosophy’s many points of view as well as with any other field of study. And if you can prove me wrong that all things are not backed by thought or have originated from thought, email me your rebuttal at theworldendsnow@gmail.com.
There is no value. There is no right and wrong. There are no choices. Ignorance is not an item for ridicule; rather, it is encouragement disguised as learning-stutters. The world is drenched, literally, in points of views unprejudiced to who views them. To not appreciate one point of view as much as another leads to conflict.
Since the beginning of knowledge collecting(learning), there has been a balancing act between the outlook of good and the outlook of evil. They’re both points of view and much of human history is dotted with imbalances between them. The balance between good and evil happens when neither are appreciated more than the other. It is evil when good is more than evil and is also evil when evil is more than good. And good is when good and evil are balanced.
These simple misuses of appreciation between the two have been debated upon on massive scales and on the personal level to dictate what knowledge had merit amongst an infinite array of points of view. For example, the knowledge of iron plus that of fire gave an infinite array of points of view but due to points of view valued more than others, like that of long-lasting imbalances between ancestral countries and over-valued ideals, military knowledge narrowed the possibilities of iron and fire to armor, canons, spears, and swords.
The optimistic point of view could hold claim that if so and so country didn’t raise weapons, our lives now wouldn’t be as they are. That’s so very true. But to think of it this way, Mr. Or Mrs./Miss-optimistic, if imbalances between two countries were resolved and the point of view of peace prevailed, the culmination of steel would have revolutionized the world a whole-lot sooner. Even the light bulb could have been discovered before Columbus came to the Americas. And maybe space travel could have been used to get humans to another part of our galaxy.
But alas, that is just an example. A point of view postponed. By now, you might have forgotten the word Transphilsophy. Rightfully so as all the before-said is merely a part of what makes Transphilosophy beyond philosophy. Philosophy is an outlook containing many points of view. From itself alone, many of those points of view became outlooks on their own. Math was borne from the point of view of logic. Ethics was borne of the point of view gathered from the actions taken by conscious beings. Physical science was borne of the point of view that sustains our need to understand how something works in our environment. Metaphysics was borne of the inward-looking point of view of philosophy that has its own language to describe the abstract meaning of existence and that of reality. Though these four make up the cornerstones of philosophy, the love for knowledge/wisdom has somewhat dwindled between the many points of view and fields of study. A mathematician can theorize, with numbers and models, how far someone falls when in love but cannot describe it. If and when they can, it can be clearly speculated that hey are not a mathematician first but a philosopher always.
Throughout our lives, the appreciating tug-o-war between what to believe as good or bad and what to keep pushes us towards a destiny. And to better understand that destiny is where Transphilosophy comes in.
Imagine a world where there are no boundaries, no hunger, no war, no possessions but that of a sense of community. A world where seeing eye-to-eye means you’ll contemplate till the next conversation so that you might learn something new or teach. If it sounds John Lennon-esque… good. Transphilosophy is, by my definition, the all-encompassing appreciation for philosophy’s many points of view as well as with any other field of study. Now… a background of how Transphilosophy came about.
My answer for Aristotle’s ‘Uncaused Cause’ gave way to concepts of the consciousness. Instead of joining Aristotle and Plato with arguments that an initial cause must exist, I began looking for the initial cause itself. And before I get ahead of myself, it simple started with “What is the meaning of life?” I first considered that all things are alive by the universal observation of exchange between the parts of an atom to be “life” with energy’s movement. And energy is what I considered the action between parts, or what is more easily known as friction. Friction, therefore, by its combining and separating function, vamped my search enough to change the question to “What is the meaning?” and “Why is there meaning?”. The latter question helped me out of being stuck when I studied the periodic table of elements. I noticed that from left to right, elements gained electron shells as they become more stable and noble gases were the most stable; or stable enough to be considered by chemists as inert. From this I gathered that all atoms, within any structure, had the main goal throughout their existence to lose itself indiscriminately with the atoms of other structures to the point where friction, or life, didn’t matter. After a short while of considering universals to better describe this “main goal,” I came up with “assimilation.” And after that I decided that there are two types of assimilation: One is inevitably the complete type where all things reach the inert state and the second being the separation of structures at the whim of friction; also known as incomplete assimilation and is the physically represented world, i.e. lamp, door, vehicle, wall, and “living” things.
But the “Why is there meaning?” came up again. I started thinking about assimilation on a beyond-molecular level to the abstract itself. I was thinking about what really justified or noted separation as the opposite of assimilation. Then it hit me… my thinking this was an assimilation of one thought with another and many others to create or complete the abstract equivalent of the inert state as omniscience. With each though is a point of view eager to assimilate with another. And with the above said question still in mind, the points of view needed sources to be a point of view from whence to be viewed. It implied a multitude of consciousness to house the points of views and from the point of view of the literary device of personification, the analogy of the human consciousness melted away into the universal that all things are conscious. Separation, therefore, is the point of view describing all incomplete assimilations such as: a rock, a building, a cloud, a vehicle, etc,. Incomplete assimilations are structures ‘in medias res’ and are made up of an amount of points of view but not all. A vehicle, for instance, is made up of the points of view of: the wheels, axle system, drive chain, engine, transmission, gear shift, emergency brake, seats, cup holders, dashboard, glove box, display panel, steering wheel, seatbelts, radio, windshields, bumpers, doors, headlights. All of these points of view were drawn to one another by assimilation. Even the point of view of travel means nothing by itself, just like every other point of view in a vehicle. You could think of it this way, you yourself are an incomplete assimilation. But it doesn’t end there. As you read this word to these next few and eventually to this comma, you are assimilating. Your point of view of walking assimilates to the point of view of the floor beneath your feet as it assimilates with the walls, ceiling, and blueprints to the point of view of a shelter. As I’ve mentioned before of outlooks, incomplete assimilations are totality-outlooks when you stop and realize the assimilation. The amount of incomplete assimilations you have govern how you see the world. How you see the world governs how you assimilate; at what rate. And if you see the world with a totality-outlook made up of the points of view of science, you can only appreciate the intricacies of the point of view of the scientific method and the mechanics of how something works as opposed to why it works. To appreciate more than the how it works requires more points of view than just science. When studying the mechanics of a clock, you aren’t just an observer to a mastered set up of cogs and gears, you are a participant. You are a part of what you study: you are not apart from it. This equality created by all things having a consciousness and ultimately a point of view as willing to assimilate as you are is the basis for Transphilosophy. And the basis itself answers the “Why is there meaning?” question.
I look at it this way; all things happen for a reason, have happened for that same reason as they will happen for that same reason and no other reason. We’re here because we’re here and if we weren’t there wouldn’t be a point of view that we aren’t here or theories speculating at the reasons we’re not here as expression wouldn’t be here either. No assimilation. Inert. And since we’re here, we can speculate and theorize at the points of view of what it would be like to not be here.
But the above said paragraph was, in no way, a favoring speech towards nihilism. ^_^ It was however a launch pad for this paragraph on Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause.
Why is there meaning? Thought. The answer to life: thought. The answer to the universe: thought. The answer to everything: thought. Instead of thought meaning a product of mental activity; consider thought to be the infinitely-inert and omnipresent energy. If I were wrong, I wouldn’t be able to write this very sentence in this very notebook with this very pen for you to be able to read it with your very eyes or wouldn’t be able to slowly convince you that all things originated from thought. Besides, it would be literally inhuman to believe me.
Consciousness. One of the many structures created. It alone facilitates thoughts. You, being conscious, could very well deny what I’m suggesting because you yourself cannot fathom what I can seeing as we both are conscious. You could go about your life, smiling on cue, cashing your paycheck; but how long will you go on ignoring the question of why you do any of it? Will you confide in the spiritual messages that you’re alone and that your life is what you make it? Will you look back on your life and only count the happiness?
And to think, the above paragraph is just a thought. There is no value. There is no right or wrong. There are no choices. Ignorance is not an item for ridicule; rather, it is encouragement disguised as learning-stutters. And there it is, Transphilosophy, the all-encompassing appreciation for philosophy’s many points of view as well as with any other field of study. And if you can prove me wrong that all things are not backed by thought or have originated from thought, email me your rebuttal at theworldendsnow@gmail.com.
[ Login to reply ]
soulshaker on
Re: Transphilosophy
As it took Newton twenty years to mathematically explain his theory, give us calculus, it will take you just as long to prove yours. I have several profound mathematical theories and like you each one is contradictory and maybe that is the point. I’m not sure if I will die tonight but I have taken and drank enough that I’m pretty sure I will but I hope you continue on your quest to find out what this
This isn't a theory. It's just a way to look at things.
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: 10-11-08 - The Care and Feeding of a Treasured Friend - Oh wow. That is so terribly sad!!! I am so glad...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy