Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 8, 2019 16:00:43 GMT
Most people make an assumption about a book within the first few sentences, they assume it will be of value or not, and very rarely do they see value within the first sentence itself unless it stands out from all the other message’s they receive throughout the day amidst the various other messages that they must assume on first hand accounts as we live in a time where information exists in bit sized pieces taken upon assumption with little thought about the assumption itself.
This first sentence is too long for most readers, and most already are saying to themselves “what the fuck”. Other’s are saying “wow, that is deep, I want to hear more”.
The second sentence is not.
All books intend to convey a message. In order to convey this message they must start with an assumed point that is self-evident. This self-evident assumption is called an “axiom”. This book is strictly self-evident “as is” for those who understand it. It will also be self-evident that others will not understand it, this absence of understanding where the book appears without “form” is also paradoxically axiomatic…it is “absurd” and this absurdity is also assumed. It again will be self-evident that people will not care. In simpler terms this book will be positive for some, negative for others, and completely neutral to most.
This statement above is absurd precisely because it is so simple, but because it is so simple many will observe it as rational. It is this dualism of irrationality and reason that provides the foundation for all “knowledge”. As with most knowledge, its degree of “genius” or “insanity” is determined quite literally because of its reciprocation with the intended audience and most audiences are fundamentally split.
In the long history of transferring information, whether through oral tradition, the written word or story telling, the “bearer” of information of seeks to reference or provide quotes in order to observe a connection with an authority figure. Some stranger may quote Einstein in order to connect a message of “self-empowerment” and overcoming the odds. A student may have to reference an argument in a paper to some “expert” in a field.
This is a fallacy of authority. We assume because a person is an authority what they say is true. We do this on a group basis so as to create a hierarchy in which to delegate knowledge to a specific group, and elite class you could say, that is fundamentally separate from the rest. This we do democratically as group agreement in itself is an authority. This is a fallacy as well because we assume the group is an authority and this is called “the bandwagon fallacy”.
Most of what you learn is a fallacy. A fallacy is that which is contradictory. A contradiction makes little sense. Yet we go through our lives taking contradictions as “true” primarily because we assume. Being told to “think for yourself”, because an authority figure told you to…is also a contradiction.
If an outside authority is quoted in this book, a contradiction occurs. However, people will be able to “relate to it more”. However, if they need an outside source in order to relate to it…a contradiction also occurs as the author has to reference an outside source in order to make his point understood. Now read these three sentences and apply them to your own life. How many times have you had to “reference” something or someone because you are not understood? How many times have you failed to explain something adequately? How many times have you asked yourselves these basic questions…if at all?
All of these questions are grounded in our ability to “connect”. To transfer one axiom to another observer and maintain some sense of “unity” between what both people are seeing. Even referencing other’s so they have the credit…is still observe an inherent relation, a sense of “separateness” you could argue between the observer’s and their understanding of the subject which paradoxically still unites them.
But that in itself is its own question considering “who must it relate to?” At least that is the question most books, including this one, must answer. You could take this question, cut out “book”, and apply your own thoughts and see for yourself how complicated this little question can be at the personal level of day to day life. You have a thought, a message, some form of information you either desire or need to transfer to another person. It may be work related, it may be relational…it may strictly be just “talking to yourself” and sorting out your own perceived problems or identity. However, regardless of the manner you approach this question, it breaks down to connecting one set of self-evident truths to another. Seeing the same things someone else sees. Seeing things as “they are” within yourself.
The nature of self-evidence is universal to all of mankind due to its grounding in “assumption”. It is precisely because of not just this nature of “assumption” but effectively the large amount of assumptions that the general state of…well…”things”…is very confusing. We see this in ourselves. We see it in other’s. We see this in the whole of society if we take a moment and look outside our “bubble” or “sphere of influence”. There are a lot of assumptions and because there are a lot of assumptions people, when instinctively looking for deeper truth or understanding over an issue, go to a source of information.
Some truths, if not most, are relative to a specific set of circumstances, a “part” of our own lives. Again this usually breaks down to work, relationships, or understanding the self. If the questions are deeper in the sense one is trying to see “the truth”…people generally pick a specific field of studies they assume to have the answer. The problem occurs in not only that this is an assumption but that these fields are grounded in assumed axioms.
This nature of “assumption” occurs in a wide variety of books ranging from philosophy, to the sciences, to religion, with all of these books existing as “axioms” or “self-evident truths” in themselves relative to other fields. A book on philosophy may observe an axiom in science, such as a specific scientific truth, where this specific scientific truth may observe an axiom grounded both in a separate philosophy book or from mathematics. This occurs in religion as well where some axioms of science are used to understand religion and some axioms of religion are used to understand science. One could argue “x” field begins with “y” assumption and give insight into “x” field. This would give a thought, or at least a “feeling”, one has learned something…but this would in itself be an assumption.
Walking into a book store, library, or even simply using an online search engine one can observe not just a large number of books, all with “axioms” as their base, but also the books as axioms in themselves which are referenced to further sources. We assume the author knows what he or she is talking about precisely because of a title or reference to some other person, often times with a title as well. It is precisely because of this “title” we assume “truth”.
The title represents not only an air of mystery, but some form of elitism in which the person has some depth of knowledge the average person, or even an expert in some other field, does not have. This depth of knowledge is presumed precisely because the expert is able to connect a variety of axioms. He, or she, is a “deep thinker”, a “genius”, or even “insane” precisely because of the large number of self-evident truths they are able to assume. All of this we “assume”.
This “assumption”, a title in this case, acts much like a veil. They know something we do not and we assume this. We assume this because of complexity, with complexity observing fundamentally at its root, a multiplicity of assumptions. Now pay attention to the following four paragraphs and observe the multiple times “assume” or “assumption” are used.
It is a fair assumption though that these people know something we do not, but the great irony is that we rarely assume that they themselves are assuming something. Any reference back to grade school and memory always directs itself to the first day of class assumingly. This class may be physics, math, religion, English, “x” foreign language, philosophy, social studies or a variety of other courses assumed to be had by the student. Each of those courses begin with a specific set of assumptions about their specific field.
These assumptions, while perceivable separate, are then connected to form new assumptions based off the prior assumption. A basic assumption may be learning an axiom of Euclid where a line exists between two points…with an assumption that we where all taught this same…well “assumption”. The basic line between to points, as an assumption, is then observed in relation to another assumption of “the whole is greater than the part” and we can assume that the square is greater than a line as it is composed of multiple lines. This is really simple precisely because it is assumed what “greater” really is.
In religion I may learn that King David (an assumed figure) within the Abrahamic tradition (assuming such a tradition exists), committed the sin of adultery (which is also an assumption based upon the stories of others). Some assume this story is literal, other’s assume it is metaphorical. Both assume they know what “literal” or “metaphorical” means. This is assumed because that same faith is grounded in the axiom of “adultery” being a sin. This further grounded in the assumption that these laws where effectively “revealed”.
On the other hand, I may learn, from a separate set of assumption that “King David” might have been viewed as a moral man relative to “a will to power” which is regarded as a basic assumption in Nietzschean philosophy. This “will to power” is assumed based off the premise of an inherent tension within the state of existence where one force exists in opposition to another force. We assume this axiom as true without realizing this assumption is not really in a state of opposition to itself. We also assume it is strictly Nietzsche that observed this and not some other philosopher such as the assumptions pre-Socratic Heraclitus or the perpetually moving monads of Leibniz’s assumptions.
Now observing the above paragraphs, and the words “assumption” or “assume” take on a relatively large role in giving definition to the nature of “schooling”. One simple word is applied to such a large manner of “connections” that it effectively becomes of “no value” precisely because it means and can be applied to well “everything”. With an increase in complexity, comes an increase in depth, and depth has little value because it represents intuitively a degree of chaos. The above four paragraphs may appear deep, but with that depth comes an inherent chaos within the minds of some of the people reading…and well re-reading, them.
We observe assumptions; hence the reader now has some degree of understanding about the nature of “quoting” others and going into some fallacy of authority or bandwagon…which are precisely fallacies because of this nature of “assumption” grounded in them. If “all” is assumed, we are left fundamentally on very shaky grounds relative to the nature of knowing. An inherent relativity seems to be the foundation of knowledge. This relativity is grounded in the individual state of the observer as an assumer.
“All axioms, as self-evident truths, are assumed”, this is a grounding of what many philosopher’s call the Munchausen Trilemma. This axiom however is well “assumed” and a contradiction occurs. We are assuming assumption, axiomatizing an axiom and fundamentally the grounding of knowledge is grounded in empty mindness where the projecting of the void (the empty mind) into some form whether it be an empirical sensory act or mental/intuitive image is fundamentally an act of belief that maintains itself to a self-referentiality and fundamentally acts as its own judgement base.
This first sentence is too long for most readers, and most already are saying to themselves “what the fuck”. Other’s are saying “wow, that is deep, I want to hear more”.
The second sentence is not.
All books intend to convey a message. In order to convey this message they must start with an assumed point that is self-evident. This self-evident assumption is called an “axiom”. This book is strictly self-evident “as is” for those who understand it. It will also be self-evident that others will not understand it, this absence of understanding where the book appears without “form” is also paradoxically axiomatic…it is “absurd” and this absurdity is also assumed. It again will be self-evident that people will not care. In simpler terms this book will be positive for some, negative for others, and completely neutral to most.
This statement above is absurd precisely because it is so simple, but because it is so simple many will observe it as rational. It is this dualism of irrationality and reason that provides the foundation for all “knowledge”. As with most knowledge, its degree of “genius” or “insanity” is determined quite literally because of its reciprocation with the intended audience and most audiences are fundamentally split.
In the long history of transferring information, whether through oral tradition, the written word or story telling, the “bearer” of information of seeks to reference or provide quotes in order to observe a connection with an authority figure. Some stranger may quote Einstein in order to connect a message of “self-empowerment” and overcoming the odds. A student may have to reference an argument in a paper to some “expert” in a field.
This is a fallacy of authority. We assume because a person is an authority what they say is true. We do this on a group basis so as to create a hierarchy in which to delegate knowledge to a specific group, and elite class you could say, that is fundamentally separate from the rest. This we do democratically as group agreement in itself is an authority. This is a fallacy as well because we assume the group is an authority and this is called “the bandwagon fallacy”.
Most of what you learn is a fallacy. A fallacy is that which is contradictory. A contradiction makes little sense. Yet we go through our lives taking contradictions as “true” primarily because we assume. Being told to “think for yourself”, because an authority figure told you to…is also a contradiction.
If an outside authority is quoted in this book, a contradiction occurs. However, people will be able to “relate to it more”. However, if they need an outside source in order to relate to it…a contradiction also occurs as the author has to reference an outside source in order to make his point understood. Now read these three sentences and apply them to your own life. How many times have you had to “reference” something or someone because you are not understood? How many times have you failed to explain something adequately? How many times have you asked yourselves these basic questions…if at all?
All of these questions are grounded in our ability to “connect”. To transfer one axiom to another observer and maintain some sense of “unity” between what both people are seeing. Even referencing other’s so they have the credit…is still observe an inherent relation, a sense of “separateness” you could argue between the observer’s and their understanding of the subject which paradoxically still unites them.
But that in itself is its own question considering “who must it relate to?” At least that is the question most books, including this one, must answer. You could take this question, cut out “book”, and apply your own thoughts and see for yourself how complicated this little question can be at the personal level of day to day life. You have a thought, a message, some form of information you either desire or need to transfer to another person. It may be work related, it may be relational…it may strictly be just “talking to yourself” and sorting out your own perceived problems or identity. However, regardless of the manner you approach this question, it breaks down to connecting one set of self-evident truths to another. Seeing the same things someone else sees. Seeing things as “they are” within yourself.
The nature of self-evidence is universal to all of mankind due to its grounding in “assumption”. It is precisely because of not just this nature of “assumption” but effectively the large amount of assumptions that the general state of…well…”things”…is very confusing. We see this in ourselves. We see it in other’s. We see this in the whole of society if we take a moment and look outside our “bubble” or “sphere of influence”. There are a lot of assumptions and because there are a lot of assumptions people, when instinctively looking for deeper truth or understanding over an issue, go to a source of information.
Some truths, if not most, are relative to a specific set of circumstances, a “part” of our own lives. Again this usually breaks down to work, relationships, or understanding the self. If the questions are deeper in the sense one is trying to see “the truth”…people generally pick a specific field of studies they assume to have the answer. The problem occurs in not only that this is an assumption but that these fields are grounded in assumed axioms.
This nature of “assumption” occurs in a wide variety of books ranging from philosophy, to the sciences, to religion, with all of these books existing as “axioms” or “self-evident truths” in themselves relative to other fields. A book on philosophy may observe an axiom in science, such as a specific scientific truth, where this specific scientific truth may observe an axiom grounded both in a separate philosophy book or from mathematics. This occurs in religion as well where some axioms of science are used to understand religion and some axioms of religion are used to understand science. One could argue “x” field begins with “y” assumption and give insight into “x” field. This would give a thought, or at least a “feeling”, one has learned something…but this would in itself be an assumption.
Walking into a book store, library, or even simply using an online search engine one can observe not just a large number of books, all with “axioms” as their base, but also the books as axioms in themselves which are referenced to further sources. We assume the author knows what he or she is talking about precisely because of a title or reference to some other person, often times with a title as well. It is precisely because of this “title” we assume “truth”.
The title represents not only an air of mystery, but some form of elitism in which the person has some depth of knowledge the average person, or even an expert in some other field, does not have. This depth of knowledge is presumed precisely because the expert is able to connect a variety of axioms. He, or she, is a “deep thinker”, a “genius”, or even “insane” precisely because of the large number of self-evident truths they are able to assume. All of this we “assume”.
This “assumption”, a title in this case, acts much like a veil. They know something we do not and we assume this. We assume this because of complexity, with complexity observing fundamentally at its root, a multiplicity of assumptions. Now pay attention to the following four paragraphs and observe the multiple times “assume” or “assumption” are used.
It is a fair assumption though that these people know something we do not, but the great irony is that we rarely assume that they themselves are assuming something. Any reference back to grade school and memory always directs itself to the first day of class assumingly. This class may be physics, math, religion, English, “x” foreign language, philosophy, social studies or a variety of other courses assumed to be had by the student. Each of those courses begin with a specific set of assumptions about their specific field.
These assumptions, while perceivable separate, are then connected to form new assumptions based off the prior assumption. A basic assumption may be learning an axiom of Euclid where a line exists between two points…with an assumption that we where all taught this same…well “assumption”. The basic line between to points, as an assumption, is then observed in relation to another assumption of “the whole is greater than the part” and we can assume that the square is greater than a line as it is composed of multiple lines. This is really simple precisely because it is assumed what “greater” really is.
In religion I may learn that King David (an assumed figure) within the Abrahamic tradition (assuming such a tradition exists), committed the sin of adultery (which is also an assumption based upon the stories of others). Some assume this story is literal, other’s assume it is metaphorical. Both assume they know what “literal” or “metaphorical” means. This is assumed because that same faith is grounded in the axiom of “adultery” being a sin. This further grounded in the assumption that these laws where effectively “revealed”.
On the other hand, I may learn, from a separate set of assumption that “King David” might have been viewed as a moral man relative to “a will to power” which is regarded as a basic assumption in Nietzschean philosophy. This “will to power” is assumed based off the premise of an inherent tension within the state of existence where one force exists in opposition to another force. We assume this axiom as true without realizing this assumption is not really in a state of opposition to itself. We also assume it is strictly Nietzsche that observed this and not some other philosopher such as the assumptions pre-Socratic Heraclitus or the perpetually moving monads of Leibniz’s assumptions.
Now observing the above paragraphs, and the words “assumption” or “assume” take on a relatively large role in giving definition to the nature of “schooling”. One simple word is applied to such a large manner of “connections” that it effectively becomes of “no value” precisely because it means and can be applied to well “everything”. With an increase in complexity, comes an increase in depth, and depth has little value because it represents intuitively a degree of chaos. The above four paragraphs may appear deep, but with that depth comes an inherent chaos within the minds of some of the people reading…and well re-reading, them.
We observe assumptions; hence the reader now has some degree of understanding about the nature of “quoting” others and going into some fallacy of authority or bandwagon…which are precisely fallacies because of this nature of “assumption” grounded in them. If “all” is assumed, we are left fundamentally on very shaky grounds relative to the nature of knowing. An inherent relativity seems to be the foundation of knowledge. This relativity is grounded in the individual state of the observer as an assumer.
“All axioms, as self-evident truths, are assumed”, this is a grounding of what many philosopher’s call the Munchausen Trilemma. This axiom however is well “assumed” and a contradiction occurs. We are assuming assumption, axiomatizing an axiom and fundamentally the grounding of knowledge is grounded in empty mindness where the projecting of the void (the empty mind) into some form whether it be an empirical sensory act or mental/intuitive image is fundamentally an act of belief that maintains itself to a self-referentiality and fundamentally acts as its own judgement base.
