Ranting: Superstring for Philosophy

[also done while in library]

Introduction

Physics have been rather obsessive of the String Theory of late, and Kate, being the individual that she is, suggested that a likewise concept be applied to general philosophy and such. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this, one, being that philosophy has very few scientifically applicable formulas and therefore painstaking math equations are not necessary in order for a point to be made: this is an advantage. The disadvantage then, is also because there are no formulas, and therefore the theoretical work remains that--a theory--to be taken on personal faith and thoughts only.

I have jolted down a few notes on the back of the photocopies of Sefer Zerubabbel, however, notes will only take you so far. Once the structure is laid out the rest remains to be filled by the thoughts as they are translated into words.

General Relativity (i.e. sociology)

Perhaps the only place where Relativity can be denoted with a capitalized ‘R’ outside of physics is in the field of philosophy. Philosophy, as something that is based on perspectives, cannot afford absolute terms which, as the physicists have developed when Einstein broke physics, physics turns out to not be able to afford, either.

This Relativity is reflected from microscales, such as each person’s individuality, to macroscales of entire cultures. Nothing demonstrates this fact by the simple (and generally agreed to be true) statement that what one person/culture may find acceptable, another will find offensive. This is why, as we grow up, we find that the basic rule of “treat others the way you’d like to be treated” should not be regarded beyond the most basic points (such as do not hit other people), and sometimes not even then (ever seen teenage guys punch each other as a sign of affection?).

The difference in perspectives and ideas means that nothing can be cleanly labelled and pack away into its own neat little niche in the minds of others. Terms such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ often has no meaning unless you apply then with respect (i.e. relative) to other things. There is no ‘absolute’ goodness and badness, so to speak, because everything is rated based on everything else. Relative extrema exist, absolute extrema do not. In an analogy, this is ideologically the equivalent of saying: black and white exists only in theory when we are evaluating the various shades of grey.

And this Relativity is important. Relativity allows for ambiguity and acceptance. Had everyone insisted on their rights as ‘absolute rights’ and their wrongs as ‘absolute wrongs’ well—you can see the problem with that when it comes to negotiations between countries. (Yes, you might say that part of the problem with world peace started here, take the ever-present Israel problem, for example.)

Relativity is fundamental in human nature too, as can be seen in the over-used (and over-emphasized, in my case) statement of “no human can be absolutely good or absolutely evil.”

In a way, you might say that humanity is founded upon relativity. Einstein’d probably be happy, even though this is not quite what he was talking about.

Quantum Levels (i.e. psychology)

Take a step back from what humanity is supposedly based on, on how culture and countries function, and look at the fact that humanity and society (I mean culture/countries but I’m really talking about the same thing) are all composed of individuals. All those other words, society, humanity, are just larger units of measurement which when you’re looking at the individual particles, translates to about the same thing. An analogy: when you’re looking at particles of water (i.e. molecules), grams, litres, or gallons of water all matters only as larger units of the said particles.

In other words, let’s take a break and talk about you. Not you as a part of something greater, playing a role you may or may not be aware of (though we’ll eventually have to cover that bit too), but you as an individual, as yourself.

According to Freud, personality is a result of conflicts between biological urges and social standards. Though this definition is generally laughed off (partially because it’s completely unscientific), there is something to be said (isn’t there always?) about human urges: to want.

Human want things. We desire, wish, long for, et cetera (a infinum probably). It is fairly safe to say that people in general have, at one time or another, felt ashamed of something that they want—an urge that they found displeasing to their personal beliefs. For instance, there is the commonly held belief that some people are ‘shallow’, and that ‘shallow’ (sometimes translated to being ‘materialistic’) is ‘bad.’ Most of the so-called shallow people, we will find, are merely people who know that they find pleasure in simple things in life, and then set out to pursue those things that gave them pleasure. They are frowned upon either because of that pursuit or because the things that makes them happy lacks a ‘deeper, significant, meaning’.

What was that tangent about, you ask? Shallow people are only a more easily explained example of the things that goes on in each of us. As intelligent beings that we pride ourselves on, we frequently ask the question “why” a lot. Why we do this, why do we that. Why are we alive, and so on. Most of us are constrained by our own minds to the sphere of perception around us, hence most of us do what we do not because we know that this will significantly alter something a decade from now, or maybe save a person’s life in a bazaar chain of events (though wouldn’t you have liked that?), most of us do things because we want to do something, or because it will bring us something that we want. We have wants, ambitions, aspirations, it’s why we do things, it’s what drives each of our lives.

How does this relate to you? Ask yourself: what do you get up in the morning on a school day? Because you have to go to school. Why do you go to school? You may either answer that it’s because you want to graduate or because your parents told you so. If you answered that you want to graduate, it’s probably because you know it’ll get you a better job, which means the likelihood of a job you want, good pay, and therefore a life you enjoy which translates to happiness. If you’ve answered because your parents made you, then ask why they’re making you, and if you are seriously considering this and not just saying “because they’re sadistic that way”, you’ll find out that they’re making you graduate because they want you to graduate, find a good job, and so on. Conclusion: our actions (getting up and going to school) are driven by our desires (to have a comfortable life, well-paying job, whatever), and that the pursuit of happiness, as it turns out, is at the end of every equation. It’s what makes the whole ‘desire to action’ clockwork tick. Each of us leads individual lives, with individual (and often numerous) desires that we convert to actions each day, and the sum of those actions is our lives.

The Strings. (i.e. philosophy)

Now we take it a step further, but before we do that, let us recap the first two sections (because they’re very long and I wasn’t able to make them any more concise while writing this). General relativity is what allows humanity to function, the individual parts, such as culture and nations, to come together. At the individual level, humans lead individual lives which are a result of their various desires being converted to actions.

Excellent, now we move on. Now we wonder at what’s the point behind all this—this, the summing up of humanity, the individual lives, and if there’re any connection between the two. Good news, Sherlock, apparently there is (or otherwise I wouldn’t have wasted two pages ranting about them).

Despite of having individual desires humans are, dare I say it, somewhat boring creatures and a great deal of desires overlap though the combinations (of desires) are mostly unique to each individual. Relativity, when based on the overlap in desires does not only hold the individuals together in the thing we call humanity, but is directly responsible for the progression of humanity. Remember how desire drives our lives? Collective desires (i.e. overlapping ones) of multitudes, held together by Relativity, drives humanity forward as people seek the thing that they all collectively want (example: world peace, which I realize only applies to a certain group/culture of people, but never the less serves as a way to demonstrate how a shared desire holds a group of individuals, with their own unique combination of wants together, and results in plenty of action).

[Let me pause for a moment and mention that a guy sitting nearby is wearing too much cologne and it’s giving me a headache.]

Is there a greater meaning then, if the whole of what we are is the summed result of individuals who can see no further than their own sphere of perception?

There is indeed.

[Interrupted again, Kate, this is the point where you called me and I had to run outside with my cellphone.]

Some things need more than one person to be accomplished. Some insights require more than one mind behind it (if you’ve ever been to a good group discussion, you’d agree). Left alone, no one can find a meaning to his/her life beyond the individual desires and actions. Our definition of who we are and the role we play only has a meaning when taken in the context with everyone else. Our meaning in life, so to speak, is defined by the effect we have on what’s around us, be it our friends or family (as is the case for some people), the environment, or the ways of the world (in the case of all the Truth-seekers out there). The other people are the scaffolding we need to stand above our own viewpoints, humanity as a whole is what tells us of our position in life (see Relativity) and for all those of you who want a greater definition of the meaning of humanity—

--it suffices to say that humanity is by itself, and that unless we find some other context to compare it to, you’re looking at a long and twisty road ahead, paved in shades of grey.

Self-comparison with respect to history is overrated. It can be applied, but in a different tangent from the current one and is the subject for another entry.

Conclusion

As mentioned before, unlike physics, philosophy has very little that you can prove factually, only ideas that you can observe and/or take up on faith. All this lovely jumbled written above is, of course, the result of one person’s attempt to fill up the structures left by many other thinkers (which I will not cross-reference because I’ve had enough of cross-referencing for the year) and it’s not even strictly scientific, so therefore shouldn’t be taken to seriously. For further reading on the spheres of perception, i.e. levels of individual perception, please ask Kate about her Russian doll theory (sorry Kate, I would’ve linked it but I don’t know where you’ve gotten it written down, if you did have it written down). Otherwise, I’m in a library, I’ve been typing for far too long, and I am going to switch from output to input and go and read something.