Towards a General Model of Thought and Behavior: Part 3 Subject Object Integration and Control Through Understanding The Counteraesthtics of Hiearchical Text and Integration.

Towards a General Model of Thought and Behavior, Part 3: Subject Object Integration and Control Through Understanding The Counteraesthtics suggested by Hiearchical Text and Integration of Imperative and Intuition.
Thomas Eugene Krawford Jr
Ann Arbor MI.

Any theory, whether that regarding the physical or the metaphysical world, is not a discovery: it is merely a successful general description of a fact of process already in place in the natural world. This general theory of thought and behavior is no different in that regard. That said, we have already some controversial assumptions pertaining to our overall discussion.

In prior posts, we  began our general model with the Nietzschean argument set forth in The Birth of Tragedy that: (in terms of art and life) there exists a necessity of error in perspective and illusion (10). We have attempted to redefine the general concept of error as any expression or act that alters the existing flow of change at work in any system of  energy exchange. Human systems, we have argued, are systems of energy exchange where  the exchange of "heat" is, I maintain, the most fundamental non-verbal language responsible for all aspects of communication, experience and memory.

In this sense then, as argued by Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; Philosphical Investigations), language remains an inherent system of establishing first internal, then exterior order in joint, direct and inverse expressions of understanding and order .

But we have gone further.

In order to make this transformation we have employed several positivist sub-transformations. Namely: the Second Law of Thermodynamics' Corollary of Deforming Potential applied to a given element of a given system:

(-1 0 1) where two counter oppositional elements are bound by a third element, neither contain, but both are defined by in terms of the the system' general identity.

The negative and positive elements will both deform their potential in relation to the zero element both are bound by, but neither contain. 

We have also employed the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics to further establish our argument for the nature of that which is inherent in any given system, human or otherwise.

As this and the following diagram indicates, it is my general contention that for any given system where three elements that share at least one common vertice, this basic interrelation will exist and it will lend itself to an integration of its elements based solely on the defroming potential of the two counter opposing elements in joint, direct and inverse relation bound by a third element neither one is, yet both contain.
And as the second diagram suggests, the basic structure of inherency is determined by the nature of the the exchange of heat in terms of deforming potential, relative to that system integrity as a bound field of joint, direct and inverse relation. The result of which is the constitution of necessary subject.

From here, in terms of thought and behavior, we can safely say that there is a necessity of error in perspective and illusion such that the Subject, that which is inherent, is necessary. Furthermore, by implication we are also arguing that inherent nature as a closed natural system is also a capacity of inherent equilibrium.

At this point we revisit Hegel's concept of synthesis as that concept informs our next objective: the constitution of that which is probable; The Object constructed from that which is inherent.

Whereas Inherency as we have described it, involves inherent capacity, our argument for The Object as constructed from that capacity, involves aspects of quantity that are not necessarily inherent, but nonetheless just as fundamental in the dynamics of General Thought and Behavior.

Daniel Berthold-Bond's Hegel's Grand Synthesis: study of being thought and history, goes in depth into Hegel's ideas of  the object as that quantity which is:

...implicit in it's immediate appearance...the fuller knowledge requires that we make implicit what is implicit in object...(13)

Berthold-Bond makes the connection between Hegel's work and that of Martin Heidegger in so far, that the concept of absolute existence: that "self" initiated altering of mind where object is developed into truth is argued to be the result of human centeredness (19).  But both in terms of Hegel's Grand Synthesis and Heidegger's Relativism, I argue the central issue here involves looking at the system of thought and behavior interrelation, not necessarily as an anthropomorphic abstraction but as a relatively closed, yet dynamic system of energy exchange where error represents a change in general direction of general outcome. Hence, its inherent necessity to the overall system's general success and longevity.

Basically then, we reaffirm our initial claim that The Object: that which is constructed from that which is Inherent, is probable, its nature itself, derivative of the requirements necessary for the exchange of various aspects of heat energy particular to that given system relative to the occurrence of that system in the environment where it is jointly, directly and inversely substantiated (borrowing again from Wittgenstein) by its integration.

This model places the Hegelian Dialectic: thesis, antithesis and synthesis into a more pragmatic and constructive frame. In the model, if we assume that Object is thought, that which is constructed from a Subject inherency arising from system energy exchange,  then as Geoff Boucher argues:

"The Hegelian reply to postmodern discourse theory is as powerful as it is simple. Postmodern discourse theory presupposes exactly what it omits: the totality of an intersubjective rationality expressed in the medium of a shared language. Laclau and Mouffe are caught in the standard performative contradiction of postmodernism, namely, in the very gesture with which they deny the possibility of a shared universe of meanings they demonstrate that their argument relies on such a totality for its intelligibility. What their argument says (the constative value of the propositions) and what it does (its performative character) by being said are in contradiction with each other - hence, a 'performative' contradiction.
In the moment in which the theory is articulated, the discursive totality it represents is by definition unintelligible to every other discursive framework. Yet the theory makes a direct appeal to the Left in particular to adopt postmodern discourse theory... Hence its intelligibility stems from the shared meanings it holds with a handful of other discourses, not from some intersubjective totality. (2000).

In terms of intersubjective totality then, I return to my adaptive positivist assertion that since according to our reading of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Inside an isolated system, in order for a process to proceed, Δ S > 0.  Such a process is said to be spontaneous.  A process for which ΔS < 0 is called non-spontaneous and is impossible for an isolated system. (http://www.genchem.net/thermo/laws.html ).

Since the totality of any system depends on and is substantiated by the conservation of energy inherent in that system, then what is inherent in that system must also, by definition, substantiate that system's subsequent construction and maintenance based on that capacity that is considered inherent to that system.

Therefore, as The Subject is Necessary, that which is Inherent, The Object, that which is constructed from that which is inherent must be, by definition, Probable.

At this stage of our argument, the implications for our general understanding of control are not clear

.Where we will go in the next post will be an assertion that there is thus a Constancy of Occurrence of Subject and Object in Joint, Direct and Inverse Relation to the other from the Greatest Common General Circumstance of Subject or Object Counter-Occurence to the Least Common Individual Result of Subject Object Integration.

In the next post, we will also discuss the post structural and post modern implications of this assertion from a combination of Derridean and Fouccalutian formulations as those concepts relate to the current state of affairs in the Gulf of Mexico, The Arizona Boarder and our own Personal Narrative.

Thank you.