Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

An exciting new pattern has been noticed which shows itself again and again on the examination on each separate appearance of reason. On the basis of this ‘pattern’, an attempt is made to shed light on the nature of reason. This pattern is very simple and it provides a link which shows what is in common for cognition, thinking, beauty, truth and goodness.

It is certain that the ultimate knowledge – what reason is in a general sense – according to its definition, breezes through each separate appearance of reason. Searching for the common in countless different appearances of reason would be a remarkably extensive and practically impossible task. However, this task will be simplified by using the fact that the vast number of the various appearances of the reason is categorized under several general areas in philosophy: epistemology, logic, aesthetics and ethics. Basic principles of these disciplines have been analyzed. What is common to all of them is the nature of reason itself.

Here is the pattern I am talking about, which at the same time is the summary of the book. The first chapter summary, as most unobvious, comes last here.

1. Truth is a relation of identity between the truth-bearer (e.g., a proposition) and truth-maker (e.g., a fact). (Russell and Moore in one period)
• “Correspondence holds between a proposition and a fact when the proposition and fact have the same structure, and the same constituents at each structural position” (Glanzberg), or essentially - correspondence is a relation of identity according to the structure;

2. Beauty

• Rhyme is a relation of identity between one of two or more words or phrases according to the final sounds;
• Rhythm is a relation of identity, according to the time interval between the beats;
• Golden ratio is a relation of identity between the ratio of the whole to the larger part and the ratio of the larger part to the smaller;
• Symmetry is an identity relation between two sides or halves;
• Anaphora is a relation of identity, according to the initial phrase or word in consecutive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses;
• Assonance is a relation of identity, according to the vowels between neighboring or words in close proximity to one another;
• Anadiplosis is a relation of identity between the last and the first word of two neighboring phrases or sentences;
• Epanalepsis is a relation of identity between a phrase or a word used at the beginning and the end of a sentence;
• Meter (in literature) is (1) relation of identity between feet, according to their structure; and (2) relation of identity between verses according to the number of feet (and syllables at the same time) they have;
• Etc.

This led us to an assumption that beauty in its essence is a relation of identity and the beauty of an object is the totality of identity relations it contains. This sub-thesis can be supported with the authority of Francis Hutcheson and the English poet Coleridge, who in his “On Poesy or Art” essay, writes: “…pleasure consists in the identity of two opposite elements, that is to say sameness and variety. …This unity in multeity I have elsewhere stated as the principle of beauty” (Coleridge).

3. Goodness

• Justice is a relation of identity between the value of the given and the value of the deserved;
• Distributive justice is essentially a relation of identity between the values of privileges, duties, and goods the individual receives on the one hand, and the value of the merits of the individual on the other hand;
• Retributive justice is essentially a relation of identity between the severity of the crime and the severity of punishment (‘An eye for an eye’);
• Restorative justice is a relation of identity between the extent of damage and the extent of reparation;
• Golden rule is an identity between the treatment we want to receive and the treatment others receive from us;
• Happiness is a relation of identity between the actual and desired state;
• Love is a relation of identity between two souls;
• Solidarity is a relation of identity in interests, objectives, and standards among members of a group or a class;
• Empathy is identification with the other according to the feelings or experiences;
• Each social group, category, or any other form of unity of reason in individuals, is formed on the foundation of some type of identity between individuals that constitute it;
This led us to an assumption that goodness in its essence is a relation of identity and that the moral reasoning is in its core a process of identification and differentiation. From my humble knowledge of the history of philosophy, I cannot remember of another metaethical theory according to which goodness is a relation of identity. However, The fundamental thesis of the so-called moral egalitarianism, which dominates the social, political, and moral philosophy since the end of the 20 century onwards, is that equality is the essence of morality. On the other hand, every equality can be easily reduced to pure identity.

3. Thinking

• Induction is an identification between the known and unknown cases of the same class;
• Process of deductive thinking includes a series of identifications, first between the subject and the predicate from the first and second premises. Then the main identification, the essence of the deduction, between the two premises according to the middle term, wherein, with the application of Euclid’s rule: ‘Things equal to the same thing are also equal to one another’, as a conclusion we get identity between the major and the minor term. The deduction is a usage of the transitivity of identity
• Analogy is an identification between two relations of objects;
• One idea associates with another idea which is identical to it according to one or more properties;
• Each categorization and each classification occur according to a certain identity;
• Abstraction is the process of formulating generalized ideas or concepts by extracting common properties from specific examples. Common properties are in fact the content of the identity relation between specific examples. In order for the reason to extract these common properties, it needs to perform an identification.
• Analysis is based on identification because it clearly claims an identity, according to the meaning of analysandum and analysans;
• Etc.

This led us to an assumption that thinking in its essence is a process of identification and differentiation. I add differentiation because every identification is at the same time differentiation. As postulated in logic, the goal of the abstract logical thinking is reaching the truth. The goal and the result of the operation of identification can only be an identity, and according to this, truth, as seen previously, is nothing else but a relation of identity and when the reason recognizes truth it actually recognizes a relation of identity. This is a relatively new understanding which I offer considering the very well accepted fact that the first law of thinking is the principle of identity (A=A). In a sense, this chapter is an explanation of what fundamentality of the identity, as the principle of thinking, consists of.

5. What I believe is completely new in philosophy is the understanding that reason cognizes on the principle of identity and difference. An alternative theory of perception is offered which I found very exciting. I will try to sketch it as short as possible:
It is based on the possible answer of the old metaphysical question - what is a thing. A proposed answer is that sensible things, as we know them, are segments of space and/or time with inherent uniformity or, what I allow myself to call them - “identities in themselves”. I found support for this thesis in Plotinus’ who in his ninth Ennead says that: “It is in virtue of unity that beings are beings” and that things “could not exist without an inherent unity.” Other support came from Heidegger, who claims that “What the principle of identity, heard in its fundamental key, states is exactly what the whole of Western European thinking has in mind – and that is: the unity of identity forms a basic characteristic in the Being of beings.”
These particular uniform segments correspond exactly to the uniform segment in the stream of the electrical impulses provided by the senses, from which they are created. And this stream is uniform when light and sounds are uniform, from which is generated. The light is uniform when material reality in itself is uniform, from which it is reflected (with certain imperfections). One uniformity mirrors other uniformity. Reality as we know it and reality in itself, although completely different in nature, have the identical identity-difference structure. Or, as Spinoza brilliantly put it: “The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things”.
In order to create things, which are uniformities in themselves, the reason must cognize where the impulse is uniform, where the difference begins, and divide it in sequences according to these boundaries. It actually identifies and differentiates. Particulars are substantivized identities in the series of electric impulses.
Furthermore, widely accepted understanding in philosophy is that “…a universal will be anything which may be shared by many particulars…” (Russell). Since it is shared by them it is something they have in common, and a thing in common is, of course, what is identical between particularities. Universals are substantivized identities between particulars or, what I allow myself to call them - “identities between”. It is fairly certain that in order to create these types of things it is necessary that the reason compares the particular or the less general things, to establish identities and differences between them, and to unite the identical ones in bigger wholes.
********************
These five sub-theses in their generality encompass almost the complete activity of the reason (epistemology, logic, aesthetic and ethic). Now the question arises, are these analyses sufficient to make a bold general conclusion that reason functions on the principle of identity and difference? Their perfect compatibility gives one another mutual confirmation.
Essay on Human Reason: On the Principle of Identity and Difference

Wow! (Did anybody read all this?)

They lost me at "...beauty, truth and goodness..." which gave me a warning, sinking feeling right at the start. I did skim the rest to try and be fair, and there are some interesting points I thought, but so many other points arise which require careful unpacking, and clarification (imho) that I had to give it up, maybe when I have a freer day...

Stojkoski wrote: "An exciting new pattern has been noticed which shows itself again and again on the examination on each separate appearance of reason. On the basis of this ‘pattern’, an attempt is made to shed light on the nature of reason..."

All “exciting new pattern[s]” originate from a fundamental pattern found throughout the universe, guided by the constructal law, resulting in dendritic configurations.

The constructal law states, “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”

The flow of human “reason” to persist in time, living within the laws of nature, having freedom in the evolution of understanding, provides greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature, results in changing configurations of philosophy, culture, markets, technology and scientific understanding, etc.; generating dendritic patterns guided by the constructal law all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain).

As you stated, “It is certain that the ultimate knowledge – what reason is in a general sense – according to its definition, breezes through each separate appearance of reason. Searching for the common in countless different appearances of reason would be a remarkably extensive and practically impossible task.”

Perhaps, we may say “– what reason is in a general sense –” exists as a “common” pattern found within the dendritic configuration of neurons within the brain; hence, “epistemology, logic, aesthetic and ethic,” etc.

The following is an example of “epistemology, logic, aesthetic and ethic” relative to the constructal law:
https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Sci...

Mike wrote: "Stojkoski wrote: "An exciting new pattern has been noticed which shows itself again and again on the examination on each separate appearance of reason. On the basis of this ‘pattern’, an attempt is..."

Is it fair, or useful, to posit that reason is the process of trying to find understanding through the testing of ideas for their validity, as rigorously as the human mind is able to?

Scire wrote: "Is it fair, or useful, to posit that reason is the process of trying to find understanding through the testing of ideas for their validity, as rigorously as the human mind is able to?"

Relative to “reason is the process of trying to find understanding through the testing of ideas for their validity,” could science ever run amok with ambitious reason lacking ethics, or ambitious ethics lacking reason? Where do you think this research is headed?
http://www.ultrascientist.org/search....

Scire wrote: "Mike wrote: "Stojkoski wrote: "An exciting new pattern has been noticed which shows itself again and again on the examination on each separate appearance of reason. On the basis of this ‘pattern’, ..."
Well, yes. In any case, it cannot be said that these and other existing definitions completely satisfy my philosophical curiosity because they simply inform about what the reason does and not the ways in which it does it.

Stojkoski wrote: "Well, yes. In any case, it cannot be said that these and other existing definitions completely satisfy my philosophical curiosity because they simply inform about what the reason does and not the ways in which it does it...."

Thank you for sharing your philosophical curiosity about reason. Like I stated, the flow of human “reason” to persist in time, living within the laws of nature, having freedom in the evolution of understanding, provides greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature.

That is, life is a product of the physical laws of nature and trapped within its matrix, there are no exceptions. Therefore, life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. Understanding about reason and “the ways in which it does it,” is a function of evolution providing greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature, and one day you may find solace in satisfying your philosophical curiosity about reason. In other words, one’s philosophical curiosity guides science, where scientific discovery reforms philosophy, and there is no reason why this cycle should ever end, until the end of reason.

Mike wrote: "Scire wrote: "Is it fair, or useful, to posit that reason is the process of trying to find understanding through the testing of ideas for their validity, as rigorously as the human mind is able to?..."

I don't know, we'll see :)

Mike wrote: "Stojkoski wrote: "Well, yes. In any case, it cannot be said that these and other existing definitions completely satisfy my philosophical curiosity because they simply inform about what the reason ..."

Thank you for your beautiful words

Mike wrote: "Relative to “reason is the process of trying to find understanding through the testing of ideas for their validity,” could science ever run amok with ambitious reason lacking ethics, or ambitious ethics lacking reason? Where do you think this research is headed?
http://www.ultrascientist.org/search...."

Not sure science could run amok, people surely have, and doubtless will again, run amok using science though. The abstract you referenced is interesting, though I would guess there are a number of factors vying with dozy-chaos as an explanation for "egoistic inner contradictions" (et al). One such as example: Us humans have only lived in cities and towns for a brief fraction of our time on this planet. It is, in reality, a modern phenomena which, it could be argued, it is unlikely we are designed/eqipped to cope with. The possible behavioural problems caused by this unfavourable environment might offer another interesting perspective.

Stojkoski wrote: "Well, yes. In any case, it cannot be said that these and other existing definitions completely satisfy my philosophical curiosity because they simply inform about what the reason does and not the ways in which it does it."

Now there's a beautifully impossible line of enquiry to get one's teeth into. Sincerely

Scire wrote: "... The abstract you referenced is interesting..."

The abstract is nothing! You should download the full paper ( Dozy-chaos end of the human civilization ), enjoy the read!

Scire wrote: "Stojkoski wrote: "Well, yes. In any case, it cannot be said that these and other existing definitions completely satisfy my philosophical curiosity because they simply inform about what the reason ..."

To the bone

so after reading this thread and the dozy chaos pdf, i agree that it is innate (in societal/tribal) human nature to destroy itself - with or without some unforeseen destructive planetary event; whether it is preordained in the human physiology will remain a big question, mostly because humans won't be around to analyse who or what ultimately causes the destruction of the human race.