Without extance we would be dead. We would not have even been alive. Eudaimonics can give the impression extance is a bad thing. It isn't. Every negative has its positive; there is no problem with that. Dextansis/dexis is the devil. It is evil. So what of death?
I've already touched on heaven and hell, but I need to proceed along this line of thinking. The sense of justice done after death is very appealing, but as Richard Dawkins says the sensationalism of some religious fanatics is farcical when it comes to hell. Oalance is justice. There isn't one system of law that doesn't try to find a balance and proportion. So when we die we go to eudaimonia. We become part of perfect balance. However, I firmly believe there is some sense of justice to those who are evil. There could be some metaphysical reasoning that retains imbalanced individuals in extance. There could well be some truth behind some supernatural occurences.
Oalance is everything we desire. Why should we be afraid of death when oalance exists all around us? Oalance is within us, so death as a eudaimonal end for those who have eudaimoned in life should be no more scary than a pillow. All death is the removal of proportionates. Yet the fear of death envelopes us, and we want to live longer. Death is part of life and the rejuvenation of life. Reincarnation is a distinct possibility. The difference comes when our capacity to reach oalance in normal life is restricted. We feel unjustly done by when our exprint and those of others is constricted too soon. As part of the greater balancing of nature we are afraid of death when it takes away our personal contribution to life. When our ability to express oalance is removed prematurely we cannot understand why.
Monday, 27 July 2009
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Sustainability
One word creeping into recent posts is 'Sustainability'.
Possibly the most relevant but confusing word today, its definition has gone beyond the ridiculous and has been twisted and turned to suit many meanings but has no coherent narrative. There are even different types of sustainability at different grades. The word has become a tag for the environmental movement yet has clear parameters within biological science. The very act of 'sustaining' any system requires a long-term plan and/or inherent resilience to any inwardly or outwardly cause and effect scenarios.
Sustainability itself has very Gaiaistic connotations in that within nature are positive and negative feedback cycles amplifying and dampening costs and benefits from seconds to centuries. Natural earth systems have evolved mechanisms to 'bounce' from one state of equilbrium/extansis/exsis to another. I would go as far to say natural selection, as a term of biological evolution, can be extended to physical systems using eudaimonics. I see no reason why it cannot.
Understanding resilience and long term prospects of any system gives no indication of the 'ideal' state. The assumption would be our ideal state, the 'sustainable' state, would be for life. I think it's safe to suggest the ideal process of evolution on earth is the sufficent supply of life. The whole point of Gaia is how it supports and sustains life. The earth can be very unsustainable at times, but life has always lived. The imbalance has never been too great to remove life for good. I asked James Lovelock, 'does the balance of nature exist?'. His monosyllabic reply was a resounding, 'YES'.
Nature has always been sustainable because it's always maintained an equilibrium close to perfect balance. It's resilience has been put to the test in extreme episodes when the equilibrium has been broken. But our earth has always survived. The pull to oalance is strongest on our earth. Our ideal state is the extansis closest to oalance. When long term viability is ignored, we cannot hope ourselves or our earth can sustain itself.
Our regular definition of sustainability comprises 'the needs of our generation cannot undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own'. I would prefer sustainability to be applied far more rigorously to the eudaimonic; 'sustainability is our capacity to live as close to oalance/oalancis/oalsis as we can'. In the context of God, I cannot see how people could disagree with living close to the divine!
Possibly the most relevant but confusing word today, its definition has gone beyond the ridiculous and has been twisted and turned to suit many meanings but has no coherent narrative. There are even different types of sustainability at different grades. The word has become a tag for the environmental movement yet has clear parameters within biological science. The very act of 'sustaining' any system requires a long-term plan and/or inherent resilience to any inwardly or outwardly cause and effect scenarios.
Sustainability itself has very Gaiaistic connotations in that within nature are positive and negative feedback cycles amplifying and dampening costs and benefits from seconds to centuries. Natural earth systems have evolved mechanisms to 'bounce' from one state of equilbrium/extansis/exsis to another. I would go as far to say natural selection, as a term of biological evolution, can be extended to physical systems using eudaimonics. I see no reason why it cannot.
Understanding resilience and long term prospects of any system gives no indication of the 'ideal' state. The assumption would be our ideal state, the 'sustainable' state, would be for life. I think it's safe to suggest the ideal process of evolution on earth is the sufficent supply of life. The whole point of Gaia is how it supports and sustains life. The earth can be very unsustainable at times, but life has always lived. The imbalance has never been too great to remove life for good. I asked James Lovelock, 'does the balance of nature exist?'. His monosyllabic reply was a resounding, 'YES'.
Nature has always been sustainable because it's always maintained an equilibrium close to perfect balance. It's resilience has been put to the test in extreme episodes when the equilibrium has been broken. But our earth has always survived. The pull to oalance is strongest on our earth. Our ideal state is the extansis closest to oalance. When long term viability is ignored, we cannot hope ourselves or our earth can sustain itself.
Our regular definition of sustainability comprises 'the needs of our generation cannot undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own'. I would prefer sustainability to be applied far more rigorously to the eudaimonic; 'sustainability is our capacity to live as close to oalance/oalancis/oalsis as we can'. In the context of God, I cannot see how people could disagree with living close to the divine!
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
A Brief History of Balance 4
The Golden Mean/Doctrine of the Mean
Aristotle has become a giant among men. He was quite possibly the first ever naturalist scientist. His works span the mental and physical disciplines. He helped define them.
But perhaps some of his most elucidatory work, coupled with his zoological classifications, are his Ethics, particularly the Nichomachean Ethics. I have no shame here in copying in a large chunk of text from Wikipedia! :-
Aristotle has become a giant among men. He was quite possibly the first ever naturalist scientist. His works span the mental and physical disciplines. He helped define them.
But perhaps some of his most elucidatory work, coupled with his zoological classifications, are his Ethics, particularly the Nichomachean Ethics. I have no shame here in copying in a large chunk of text from Wikipedia! :-
'Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean consists of three pillars that work together to form a complete account. First, there is a sort of equilibrium that the good person is in (1106a). This is related to a medical idea that a healthy person is in a balanced state. For example, one’s body temperature is neither too high nor too low. Related to ethics, one’s character does not go to extremes. For example, one does not overreact to situations, but rather keeps his composure. Equilibrium is the right feelings at the right time about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end, and in the right way (1106b). The second pillar states that the mean we should strive for is relative to us. The intermediate of an object is unchanging; if twelve is excess and four is deficiency, then roughly eight is the intermediate in that object. Aristotle proposes something different for finding an intermediate relative to oneself. Aristotle’s ethics are not a one-size-fits-all system; what he is looking for is the mean that is good for a particular individual. For example, watering a small plant with a gallon of water is excessive but watering a tree with a gallon of water is deficient. This is because different plants have different needs for water intake and if the requirements for each plant are not met, the plant will die from root rot (excess) or dehydration (deficiency). The third pillar is that each virtue falls between two vices. Virtue is like the mean because it is the intermediate between two vices. On this model a triad is formed with one vice on either end (excess or deficiency) and the virtue as the intermediate. If one’s character is too near either vice, then the person will incur blame but if one’s character is near the intermediate, the person deserves praise. Proper participation in each of these three pillars is necessary for a person to lead a virtuous and therefore happy life.
As stated in the inscription at the temple at the Oracle at Delphi, a person should do nothing to excess. The inscription should have also included the words, "find the mean." Temperance is the virtue that is the mean in order to control emotions, courage is the mean when seeking honor, and wisdom is the mean when seeking knowledge.
A general must seek to find courage, the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, in order to gain honor. A person who seeks pleasure through drinking must find the mean between becoming a drunkard and not drinking at all. A person who seeks pleasure through eating must find the mean between being a glutton and starving. A person who seeks pleasure through sex must find the mean between abstinence and nymphomania. A person who seeks honor through knowledge must find the mean between ignorance and seeking knowledge to excess. Excess knowledge is not wisdom, but the mind turned to cunning.
We must not understand Aristotle to mean that virtue lies exactly at the centre of two vices. Aristotle only means that virtue is in between the two vices. Different degrees are needed for different situations. Knowing exactly what is appropriate in a given situation is difficult and that is why we need a long moral training. For example, being very angry at the fact that your wife is murdered is appropriate even though the state is closer to extreme anger (a vice) than it is to indifference (a vice). In that case, it is right for the virtuous man to be angry. However, if some water has been spilt in the garden by accident then the virtuous response is much closer to indifference.'
There is a definite statement of intent here, but there are significant enough incongruities to render the mean a vague, subjective statement of intent rather than objective fact. Aristotle does not place the mean centrally. Different degrees are needed for different situations. If only Aristotle had pursued this line of thinking to it's ultimate conclusion. A 'perfect mean' could have born a religion based on his own naturalistic teachings. It could have thoroughly rebuked an 'interventionist deity'. His society's already fairly well formed democratic systems may have given rise to a human species deeply ingrained in natural processes. Sustainability on the large scale would be endemic. He may have ultimately changed the course of human evolution.Saturday, 4 July 2009
Midextansis/midexis
Lets consolidate extansis.
Extansis is the static motion of proportionates in revolution around oalance. Dextansis is the extreme version of extansis where the proportionates at the extremes of extants cause significant continual imbalance in the system where by rights eudaimotion should be taking place. Oalance is good, dextansis is bad. I would be open to the use of the term dextance to describe the state of dextansis, however dextansis suggests process whereas dextance would be something fixed among all overlapping extants that form extance. It would have to be made very clear from what perspective dextance would be viewed. There would really be only one dextance and that would be from the widest perspective of them all - universal.
There is one more vital part of extansis.
What about the proportionates in point set equally between oalance and the extremes? All proportionates form existence but these proportionates are of particular interest because they form that grey area between good and evil. They are the mid-proportionates between the balance and the extremes. They are part of the indifference of survival - neither particularly bad but neither achieving their potential at oalance. Survival for the sake of survival. No enjoyment but no misgivings, just there, until death. I think 0 can be confused within this area. Absence of anything suggests 0 but oalance is perfect 0. This is midextansis, where there is waste but a sense of control preventing deudaimotion. I imagine oalance as a bright light, and dextansis as the deepest despair, but I imagine midextansis as a pure area of indifference where there is no care neither here nor there. Stuck in a rut, unchanging, caught in that place between pure happiness and darkest unhappiness.
Of course, there is change. All change must go through midextansis. The midextance proportionates are the points on a normal distribution curve where the rate of change itself changes the quickest. The rate of change is known as the derivative. There are infinite levels of rates of change i.e. the rates of change of rates of change and so on. All forms of extansis involve a rate of change at 0. This doesn't mean there isn't change - just the rate of change is unchanging. These derivatives constitute all extansis, all midextansis and all dextansis. These forms of equilibrium are indicative of steady state systems.
Ecosystems, the mind, the climate, rocks, social policy, ideas and paradigms, housing and consumer spending patterns are all examples of how any proportionates can get stuck in extansis anywhere along their extant. It's not necessarily 'wrong' that they're in extansis - but they would be 'better' closer to oalance and more dynamic around oalance. I say 'wrong' because it could be worse and they could be in dextansis. Short-term selfish behaviour on a large scale is detrimental to the sustainability of the system and, ultimately, the eudaimonic happiness and fulfillment of everything contained within it.
Extansis is the static motion of proportionates in revolution around oalance. Dextansis is the extreme version of extansis where the proportionates at the extremes of extants cause significant continual imbalance in the system where by rights eudaimotion should be taking place. Oalance is good, dextansis is bad. I would be open to the use of the term dextance to describe the state of dextansis, however dextansis suggests process whereas dextance would be something fixed among all overlapping extants that form extance. It would have to be made very clear from what perspective dextance would be viewed. There would really be only one dextance and that would be from the widest perspective of them all - universal.
There is one more vital part of extansis.
What about the proportionates in point set equally between oalance and the extremes? All proportionates form existence but these proportionates are of particular interest because they form that grey area between good and evil. They are the mid-proportionates between the balance and the extremes. They are part of the indifference of survival - neither particularly bad but neither achieving their potential at oalance. Survival for the sake of survival. No enjoyment but no misgivings, just there, until death. I think 0 can be confused within this area. Absence of anything suggests 0 but oalance is perfect 0. This is midextansis, where there is waste but a sense of control preventing deudaimotion. I imagine oalance as a bright light, and dextansis as the deepest despair, but I imagine midextansis as a pure area of indifference where there is no care neither here nor there. Stuck in a rut, unchanging, caught in that place between pure happiness and darkest unhappiness.
Of course, there is change. All change must go through midextansis. The midextance proportionates are the points on a normal distribution curve where the rate of change itself changes the quickest. The rate of change is known as the derivative. There are infinite levels of rates of change i.e. the rates of change of rates of change and so on. All forms of extansis involve a rate of change at 0. This doesn't mean there isn't change - just the rate of change is unchanging. These derivatives constitute all extansis, all midextansis and all dextansis. These forms of equilibrium are indicative of steady state systems.
Ecosystems, the mind, the climate, rocks, social policy, ideas and paradigms, housing and consumer spending patterns are all examples of how any proportionates can get stuck in extansis anywhere along their extant. It's not necessarily 'wrong' that they're in extansis - but they would be 'better' closer to oalance and more dynamic around oalance. I say 'wrong' because it could be worse and they could be in dextansis. Short-term selfish behaviour on a large scale is detrimental to the sustainability of the system and, ultimately, the eudaimonic happiness and fulfillment of everything contained within it.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Dextansis/dexis
Based on eudaimonics, what makes us human?
Well, two things. One is the conscious cognisance of proportionates. As a species we have very effectively manipulated proportionates to our favour. Two is the idea of 'favour'. To our favour. What does that mean?
I believe humans have an unerring ability to deudaimone. In 'A Tale of Two Paradoxes - Proportionates' I mention 'extancial sticking'. It's not a very fluid term, a bit wordy and can be too easily misinterpeted as extansis. Dextansis is extancial sticking. I said it's an extreme form of extansis. If you imagine a single extant it has proportionates ranging from its extremes to its balance. Extansis can occur (with proportionates proportionate to each other either side of balance) at any point outwards from balance. The proportionate coil can rotate in stasis at any proportionate point around oalance. Dextansis is extansis at some of the most extreme points of extants where eudaimotion should definitely take place. I suggested it could be negative-led deudaimotion, and indeed that's part of it, but can very much be positive-led too; perhaps capitalism is the potent example. A misinterpretation of proportionates leads to an extansis so extreme it lasts in size and time at the extremes of imbalance. Dextansis is often a state beyond the so called 'natural' sustainable cycles of nature. Dextansis needs to be eudaimoned. It has a very strong case to be a practical explanation of the human idea of evil.
The strength of dextansis depends very much on the size of the extant(s)/distance away from oalance. A state of dextansis close to oalance won't have as considerable an effect on the system as others. We have deudaimoned as a species to gain instrumental value on the basis of 'survival of the fittest'. We have gone well beyond that calling. Climate change is an effect of dextansis. Immorality, unethical action, poverty, genocide, war; all are dextansis. Our 'favour' is our survival, but our imbalances have continued 'in stasis' for too long.
I'm afraid one of the defining labels of the human race is to enact and sometimes idolise evil. I'm not saying that we are necessarily 'unnatural' in our dextansis. As a species we have achieved wonderful and varied expressions of oalance. But we've also explored the deep, dark recesses of extance to the extreme and revelled in its permanence through time. We are part of nature and nature can work in dextansis, but humans have a fetish with the extremes in life and a complete lack of moderation and balance.
Just as oalance is God, dextansis is The Devil.
Well, two things. One is the conscious cognisance of proportionates. As a species we have very effectively manipulated proportionates to our favour. Two is the idea of 'favour'. To our favour. What does that mean?
I believe humans have an unerring ability to deudaimone. In 'A Tale of Two Paradoxes - Proportionates' I mention 'extancial sticking'. It's not a very fluid term, a bit wordy and can be too easily misinterpeted as extansis. Dextansis is extancial sticking. I said it's an extreme form of extansis. If you imagine a single extant it has proportionates ranging from its extremes to its balance. Extansis can occur (with proportionates proportionate to each other either side of balance) at any point outwards from balance. The proportionate coil can rotate in stasis at any proportionate point around oalance. Dextansis is extansis at some of the most extreme points of extants where eudaimotion should definitely take place. I suggested it could be negative-led deudaimotion, and indeed that's part of it, but can very much be positive-led too; perhaps capitalism is the potent example. A misinterpretation of proportionates leads to an extansis so extreme it lasts in size and time at the extremes of imbalance. Dextansis is often a state beyond the so called 'natural' sustainable cycles of nature. Dextansis needs to be eudaimoned. It has a very strong case to be a practical explanation of the human idea of evil.
The strength of dextansis depends very much on the size of the extant(s)/distance away from oalance. A state of dextansis close to oalance won't have as considerable an effect on the system as others. We have deudaimoned as a species to gain instrumental value on the basis of 'survival of the fittest'. We have gone well beyond that calling. Climate change is an effect of dextansis. Immorality, unethical action, poverty, genocide, war; all are dextansis. Our 'favour' is our survival, but our imbalances have continued 'in stasis' for too long.
I'm afraid one of the defining labels of the human race is to enact and sometimes idolise evil. I'm not saying that we are necessarily 'unnatural' in our dextansis. As a species we have achieved wonderful and varied expressions of oalance. But we've also explored the deep, dark recesses of extance to the extreme and revelled in its permanence through time. We are part of nature and nature can work in dextansis, but humans have a fetish with the extremes in life and a complete lack of moderation and balance.
Just as oalance is God, dextansis is The Devil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
