III The Rules of Systems of Thought and Behavior: The Constancy of Occurence of Subject Capacity and Object Quantity

III.

In our discussion, we left off with an uncommon definition of error. To clarify: error is that element of joint, direct or inverse impression in occurrence integrated from its greatest common general perceived quantity to its least common individual capacity regardless of our perception. I am ahead a little bit: for that I apologize. But the claim in this previous statement is not that far from what we began our discussion with earlier.

Namely, that error is that compositional element inherent in any system of thought and behavior which exists in part as a representative of unknown capacity. In terms of the subject as a necessary constituent of human thought and behavior, it remains impression that interconnects inherent known and unknown capacity. At this point, however, we are not concerned with quantity.

Our only concern at at this point is that the Subject as necessary implies a natural instinctive yet systemic Inherency in the occurrence of impression as capacity of which error is always a part. Whereas Object, constructed from that natural systemicity, describes the constructed systemacality of knowledge as a variable condition of expression, integrated in terms of quantity of which perspective remains only one probable outcome, and unfortunately, not always as necessary. Thus, the question of integration remains our main concern.

The Rules of Constancy of Occurrence.

When we talk about integration of Subject and Object as well as Subject or Object, we are in effect talking about experience, particularly since for our purposes, we are equating Subject to thought and Object to behavior. We have at our disposal the concept of "system."

Here we are defining system as that overall quantity and specific capacity of joint, direct or inverse interaction between similar compositional elements. This broad definition is meant to describe, in the most general terms, organic and inorganic, human and animal, defined and nondefined exchanges of hierarchical condition. It remains our main contention that these hierarchical exchanges are fundamentally binary: the Subject being that capacitry of necessary Inherency while the Object is that probable quantity constructed from the necessary Inherency to which it most closely corresponds.

For the purposes of this argument, we will restrict our discussion specifically to human thought and behavior. Afterwards, we will address special implications of the theory once we have successfully made our way through these first three or four sections of our argument.

The Rules of Constancy of Occurrence are the basic descriptive Rules defining thought and behavior as interdependent root conditions of specific quantity and capacity. Moreover, the Rules of Constancy of Occurrence stipulate that quantity and capacity integrate along three possible ranges of interrelation and that those ranges will always occur as either discrete and or continuous coefficients relative to general and specific boundary conditions.

In other words, on the one hand we have general and specific boundary conditions of Greatest Common General Circumstance of Subject or Object Occurrence and the Least Common Individual Result of Subject and Object Integration. We have more or less established this implication. On the other hand, we have joint, direct or inverse possible interrelations as variable ranges of establishment, substantiation and transformation common in all systems. Let me explain why.

First, all systems resist change. Whether we invent them from a systemicality of probable knowledge or inherit them due to a systemicity of necessary instinct, the boundaries of conjugation, symmetricality and dependent variable
are fixed in much the same fashion as a hyperbola characterizes discrete and continuous multiplicity.

Here the words "discrete" and "continuous" allow us to operate from the precedent that as a system of interaction and exchange, Subject as thought and Object as behavior are quantifiable when defined in terms of Subject as capacity and Object as quantity. Furthermore, in integration of two root elements of condition, we can use the same root transformations we used to establish our understanding of Subject and Object.

So, in terms of Constancy of Occurrence either in joint, direct or inverse relation to the other, we can use the understanding given us by extrapolating the operations of conjugation, symmetricality and dependent variable we used to describe general and specific boundaries of condition.

So, what we are saying here is that, for our purposes, The Greatest Common General Circumstance of Subject or Object Occurrence as one boundary describes the condition of Object quantity as probably continuous. The Least Common Individual Result of Subject and Object Integration is a boundary that describes capacity as necessary and discrete. From this formulation, our previous contention is clear enough: all systems, especially all of us, resist change.

That which we call Subject in part exists in and of itself as a resistance to definition. That resistance thus echoes throughout the hierarchical necessary and or probable integration of possible capacity and quantity conjugation.

Symmetricality and dependency in the variable establishment of these elements of condition, is thus proportional as either substantiation and or transformational Occurrence Constancy in overall terms, of either general or specific experience.

Let's translate our hyperbola example we used earlier: let's call it an hourglass for the purposes of clarification.

In the hourglass, we have two closed parabolic forms juxtaposed by a common vertice through which sand pours. The direction of the sand of course depends on which end we place on top of the other, but also whether or not we place the hourglass on its side. Thus we have three possible positions: one that resists change, and two where change is proportional to the condition of the other.

The hourglass also resits change. On the one hand, obviously it's an hourglass: we can safely assume that it will not change. This resistance to change is also a direct interrelation of the hourglass to its resistance and subsequent identity establishment.

Our hourglass also teaches us that for any given system, there exists a narrow range of inherent elements upon which substantiating identity depends on the joint integration of capacity and quantity. In the case of our hourglass, if we rule out breakage or sitting it on its side, we see quite clearly that the narrow range upon which this particular closed system exists in terms of both form and function is the vertice shared by two opposing yet symmetrical forms.

Thus, our argument is that all systems are like the hourglass in so far that all systems have inherent within their structure, a sub structure that resists change yet if activated through establishment, substantiation or transformation, will alter the course of the entire system. This fact is, in and of itself another echo of the necessity of error at one end of what we have argued, is the root of perspective and illusion. This argument also leads us back to our previous claim that all systems of thought and behavior resist change and yet inevitably will change due to the inherency of a necessary error in perspective and illusion. Thus we can also argue that all systems of thought and behavior are at once as discrete as they are continuous.

All systems of thought and behavior are of course heuristic in so far that each is an inverse, reorganized transformation of a prior system of similar or corresponding quantity and capacity, perspective and illusion, circumstance and or result. This makes perfect sense because of all we have said about the Constancy of Occurrence in specific and general, subject and object condition.

In our hourglass model, let the sand in either end of the overall form, represent one particular system. And while we're at it: the arrangement of every grain sand in the bottom form for example, represents every possible joint and direct subject and or object interrelation. Now, let's turn the hourglass over, placing the bottom on the top.

The transformation that now takes place as the sand from one end of our hourglass flows into the other, represents what happens when one system ends and another begins. Before we go any further, the reason why this transformation represents an inversion and not a conversion of the prior system, because converse implies a relationship between antecedent and consequent in which both are part of the same system. Inverse, on the other hand, means antecedent and consequent are associative but independent of each other.

In our hourglass, the over all peripheral shape is of course hyperbolic, but the system of sand in one specific shape over or under the other remains a constantly shifting inversion of the system of sand that came before it. This is of course contingent on our understanding that no pattern of sand in either specific form of the overall universal form will repeat if the number of those shifting grains of sand meets or exceeds a specific number relative to the volume common to both ends.
However, the fact that when one end is empty the other will be full as long as the hour glass stands on one end doesn't speak to the joint, direct and inverse arrangement of the shifting inverse systems of grains of sand. Converse only gives us a two dimensional description of logical implication. Inverse allows for the probability of much more than two dimensions in hierarchical, yet binary organization.

In other words, for our purposes, we are much more precise when we describe the relationship between the two joined systems bound by the common form of the hourglass as inverse and associative, rather than converse and by direct implication, distributive.

Hence, we have the heuristic quality of this aspect of our theory. Our guide to follow when we decide on a course of deliberation or plan of action or method of system maintenance must root itself in the shifting pragmatics of inherent capacity as Subject, probable quantity as Object and the joint, direct or inverse Constancy of Occurrence of either to its other: relative to the Greatest Common General Circumstance of Subject or Object Instance to the Least Common Individual Result of Subject and Object Integration.

That's more than enough for now. Next time we will discuss a few of the beginning principles of Meta and Counter Interactionism: a twin method system by which we will better understand, how our theory merely describes general and natural human phenomena while resolving current conflicts and inconsistencies in much of how we view human thought and behavior. We will briefly review Blumer's Interaction Theory and Postrado's Interrelation Theory and take it from there.

Thanks

II: Let's Get Started.

A. For any given System there is a Necessity of Error in perspective and illusion in so far that Error as that root capacity inherently existing as Root Systematic Nature, constitutes that which is unknown on the one hand, yet must be initially observed, understood or transformed by our roles as outsiders looking in, on the other.

Error, far from a fearful quantity, in any given system, is necessary and constant because what is unknown, in the widest possible sense will always be an unavoidable occurrence of integration constancy.

In terms of Subject then, we can now say that as a capacity, Subject is that which, from our vantage point, constitutes itself as a variable integration of root and counter root occurrence.

In this sense, I am arguing that knowledge is only a system of recorded experience integrated with behavior as thought. I don't believe knowledge is a capacity. Rather, I argue, that as a record of experience, heuristically integrated by the Constancy of Occurrence of either Subject capacity or Object quantity, knowledge is probable.

In other words for example that which we may call knowledge is not part of human necessity in terms of our understanding of human systems pe se. Since not all human beings define knowledge in precisely the same way, Knowledge remains a probability.

Before I get too far ahead of my line of reasoning the element of Root Systematic Nature, essential in all systems as initial capacity is the Subject: that is, if we do indeed accept the premise that there is a Necessity of Error in perspective and illusion particularly in how we view that which we call life or art as Friedrich Nietzsche argued in The Birth of Tragedy.

Nietzsche, of course suggested the need for a system of counter aesthetic re-ordering of our basic understanding of quantity and capacity as root elements of general condition.

Thus, the Subject is that which although unknown, is, nonetheless that which we as outside observers, may conclude exists as an initial and singular capacity and thereby, necessary.

In other words, in any given system, the Subject is Necessary, regardless of whether or not we can "understand" precisely what its particular Root Systematic Nature is or is not. In any given system there exists a specific Root System which retains its singularity regardless of General circumstantial occurrence or Least Common Specific Result of integration.

On the other hand, Object is that which is constructed from that which is Necessary. Object is thus, probable because in any given system, its inherent nature changes from General Circumstance to Specific Integration, whereas, that which is Subject does not.

For example, most of us may already believe this, but let's say that not all human beings define knowledge in the same way.

Since we have already implied that which is Necessary, is, by definition, that which is constant, we can now add that which is Probable is that which is constructed from that which, although mutable, is by definition, constituted as either a joint, direct or inverse quantity of Root Systemic Nature.

Thus, Object is that quantity which is constructed from that which depends on neither joint, direct or inverse integration to substantiate itself as an element of Specific Condition. More importantly, Object as an element of General Condition, instead, is the foundation of the symbolic record of experience more commonly known as Systematic Knowledge.

What we have so far then is: The Subject, Systemic Nature, is necessary.
Object, that which is constructed from systemic
nature: that which is constructed from subject: that
which is Systematic Knowledge, is
probable.

And there is the Constancy of Occurrence of either in joint, direct or inverse relation to the other relative to the Greatest Common General Circumstance of
subject or object occurrence to the Least Common Individual Result of Subject and Object Integration.

That's enough for now. I will discuss the Constancy of Occurrence in more detail in a future post particularly in terms of experience, behavior and thought.

Tom

A Treatise on a General Theory of Human Thought and Behavior: I ,II and III

I. The General Theory

In Francis Golffing's translation of Friedrich Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche suggested that art and life depend on the necessity of error in perspective and illusion. My goal with this and at least two more subsequent posts is to demonstrate a system of logic that extrapolates that fundamental law of optics in a general theory of human thought and behavior as a binary and hierarchical integration of subject and object root capacities.

Afterwards, I am going to describe a system of counter interactional analysis: an accessible and concise application of information reorganization. I am going to develop this thesis by referring to real world demonstrations of application of this system in deliberative discussions in three community blogs.

Finally, I am going to contextualize this General Theory with a brief but relevant review of past, present and future applications of the core element of this system. human thought and behavior has been, currently is and will always be a hierarchical integration of subject and object root capacities.

More...

Some pre-Thoughts from
Tom

a model for bringing the future to the now

I believe logic can give us a model for bringing the future to the now: a much more simple and comprehensive system of reasoning than we have seen.

Just A Thought from This Side

We are at that point where we have to stand and deliver, yet we have not been totally honest with ourselves. In fact we have turned an apathetic eye to important realities ignored for far too long.


On the one hand Health Care reform after all these years will be very cool . But speaking as someone who has some chronic health care ssues I have to ask: why did t take so long? More importantly: after the dust settles then what? Are we all going back to our old ways of doing things like a herd of cats?

The question is: how do we not, when thinking like a herd of cats describes much of our collective human nature?

I'm talking about Gay people all over America starting with reinterpreting the so-called barrier between natural rights and legal rights and push that redefinition all the way to the Supreme Court. Stop expecting all your eggs to COME OUT of one basket named Mr. President.

 I'm also talking about taking the Health Care issue and continuing to refine state and federal law: especially those laws dealing with regulations  that make it perfectly legal for an individual to make a killing with Private derivatives. But for Public Derivatives for a public who incidentally, bailed them out not to long ago,  such a egalitarian Cooperative Financial Instrument all the sudden can't be done.

I say: make it happen, what have we got to lose except the pride of a few rich MEN and a lot of sagging national debt.

But why stop there. Why not interconnect Health Care reform to the Environment. Federal Incentives for States diversifying their Municipal Bonds Securities with Green Technology and Green Jobs will make all the changes men like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy fought so long for, much more systematic and internationally competitive.

The fact is, if America is the first country to pull so much under one tent while turning a profit from streamlining and reorganizing the way she has done things, the results will make the spirits of Washington, Jefferson and Adams swell with pride. That will be a good thing.

But standing and Delivering doesn't only mean reorganizing our domestic structure when our foreign affairs are far from stable for much of the same core reasons.


 First, in Afghanistan, we have  to step back a little and take a look at some often overlooked  and in our case, essential facts. One, the Taliban, who derive their name from the word Talib: meaning Sunni student of Islamic law, are by definition  essentially "students." Like Al Qaeda, we can trace their roots back to a single man, who according to the Wikipedia was named Al Ghazali who lived in the latter 11th an early 12th Centuries in what is Modern Day Iraq and Iran.

The Wikipedia  recognizes Al Ghazali, as a "great Philosopher" who rejected Aristotle and Plato in the light of a kind of Systematic Skepticism which would later come to influence the likes of Rene Descartes and David Hume. The point is Al Ghazali believed in an inner mysticism, Sufism and his beliefs are what is at the core of both the Taliban and al Quaeda: the idea of there being a direct cause and effect in human nature determined by God and Angels.

 Thus a large part of what we were and still are fighting in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, is determined by various kinds of Occasionalism: a deep seated non-secular perspective centuries old.

Secondly, if we look at Al Ghazali as a starting point, I argue we will begin to see possible inherent divisions between the Taliban and Al Quaeda, we can use both to our advantage, and the advantage of all the people in Central Asia  without worrying about "changing" the region into a democratic one.

 On the one hand, as Talibs: students, what is the one thing all students have in common everywhere regardless  of culture or custom?  They want recognition the "work of the mind": they want to publish their theories with their colleagues and add the field, and they want to support their families with the products they create and are create from their ideas.

On the other hand there is Al Quaeda: a radical and mobile Sunni Muslim, yet Visigothic Movement of deep seeded Occassionalist fundamental beleifs.

 I used the term "Visigoths" in describing Al Quaeda because, like Alaric who sacked Rome centuries ago, Al Quaeda, based on the old mujahadeem of "The Charlie Wilson Years" sacked the then Soviet Union, and would very much like to sack the Whole Western world of today. Furthermore, according to the Wikipedia, like Alaric who was first in the employ of Rome, and then after being betrayed by her, took up a successful rebellion which ultimately led to Rome's Fall, Al Quaeda in its "Mujahadeem" form was first heavily involved with and then later abandoned by the United States of America.

 There are other comparisons, but the point is: if now is the time to stand and deliver in general, and we're looking for some kind of way forward, not just in Central Asia, but ALL the remaining, and may I add "COSTLY", under developed and "left out" world, then let's start in Afghanistan.

 The United States alone can't give al Quaeda and the Taliban what they want. But as a Globe, those who Have, will have to do whatever it takes to Develop the World we are all still so afraid of.

In my Philosophy, stand and deliver means putting everyone everywhere on the same page. In the case of Central Asia, I am talking about the World Wide Web. A Global Initiative spreading the cost, could pay for. The existing troop concentration plus extra troops in the persons of Special Forces Regiments, will be able to effectively monitor the area and support local authorities in getting the system's infrastructure up and running.

 Furthermore, once installed, this kind of development will ensure that the people of that region will never be  abandoned again.

So, are we  ready to Deliver? I certainly hope so.

Just a Thought from
Tom

Just a thought October 2009

So, I'm not placed this fall for student teaching and because of the needless worry and excessive self medication and more than enough self pity, I suppose, the asthma and the bronchitis and the long nights of healing cleanse in the way of coughing up maybe a liter or two of snot have taught me one essential truth I am going to hereby stand by, no matter what. For all those out there who feel as though I am not capable of student teaching, I have three well used and thoughtfully chosen words: Kiss My Ass ("_^

And as far the elective nature of speech in many of today's high schools who are so very concerned with making students competitive in today's market place, I argue that the current approach is not only ridiculous, it is grossly inefficient: All you guys out there who subscribe to this approach to general pedagogy and the humanities are wasting the time and money of the communities you have taken an oath to serve to the best of your ability.

Why?

Because for one thing , in general the humanities are indispensable, to the overall development of any learner because of the inherent duplicity of human nature and the ongoing need for the kind of ethical and moral perspectives essential for sustaining individual and group effective long term competitiveness in a constructive sense : a collaborative sense other than greed or self aggrandizement or a desire to dominate. For all of our good intentions, we cannot forget that in our collective human history, when ever we have endeavored to make ourselves competitive we have used dogmas such as Manifest Destiny and Me First as if they were perspectives removed from personal responsibility

Speech Communication specifically, could and should teach a basic form of logical analysis:a little history about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, a little bit about premise, premise conclusion and a little bit about premise, missing premise and conclusion. In addition, along these lines, Speech Communication could and should work closely with other classes such as Physics, and Math in matters of word problems.

Student Journals that keep record of student's thoughts and experiences learning basic logic in speech, applying those ideas in their other classes: both Science and Math related and not, would go a long way in establishing for the student a working context for understanding how all knowledge is interdependent and useful in adapting to problems that may require going beyond many of the existing barriers facing professionals in many of the Arts and Sciences today.

Consider for a moment ladies and gentlemen, the education of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Mrs. and Mr. Pierre Curie, Michael Faraday, Henri Poincare, James Maxwell, Albert Einstein or Max Planck. Ultimately, all of these men and women were indeed competitive yet I think the record clearly demonstrates that in almost every case, their education consisted of a well rounded appreciation for knowledge as a whole.

In nearly every case of a competitive and successful scientist, politician, engineer, lawyer or doctor we can trace their success to not just their understanding of their discipline, but also to how their discipline played a part in the orchestra of disciplines. Speech Communication is one of the oldest and strongest examples of how this Unified Field response to knowledge has shaped the historical nature of intelligence. And it has and will continue to work the way it does because logic is the language of knowledge: its lingua franca.

Far from being a mere elective, Speech Communication and her sister discipline Performance Studies, always have been the spark that makes overall learning competitive. And if we educators are seriously looking for more efficient and successful ways to teach our students, then we need to remember our common history as individuals who must at some point actually stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.

Just A Thought
Tom
('_^