A Meditation on Freedom
Quick and dirty thought experiment:
Let’s start with the belief that humans don’t know where they came from but know the general gist of it: we popped out of somewhere.
This “popping out” is not necessarily a scientific term but a technical philosophical term because “popping out” refers to the way we perceive reality. Even though I may be using this term (“popping out”) independent of any previous manifestation of it (it being written out or talked about before this instance), it’s used in this particular way so that it’s usage makes the term philosophical.
Now all this is true but unverifiable. It’s true because I’m aware of how I’m using the term and I have a developed idea in my mind that frames the term “popping out” as a philosophical concept.
The key aspects of the term “popping out” that makes it philosophical and not scientific is that it exists within a delicate system inside my mind that we can call “self-awareness” or “my personal identity” or “myself.”
That is, each mind is a system that operates within the system of each person’s biological processes. Our reaction to the universe and reality (or what can equally called our context or environment) is just an awareness of the context of our emotions, biological needs, our wants, etc.
The “awareness” talked about in the last sentence can be seen as another example of a manifestation of “popping out.” This awareness “popped out” of somewhere because we can say that just a moment ago my memory or awareness was working in such a way that it wasn’t aware of a particular thing but now it is.
A person may chime in saying that “convention of speakings do not affect the metaphysical, absolute Truth that is at the center of capital R Reality”.
Meaning that just because I myself observe something as happening doesn’t mean that that’s what’s actually happening. What I’m observing is a tautology: it’s happening because I’m saying it’s happening because my impression is that it’s happening but it’s just an illusion based on further, more objective capital T Truth. So what I’m trying to do when I speak and create a “system of thought” (whether religious, philosophical, scientific, etc) is actually create a system that mirrors the universe or capital T Truth or absolute Reality in its full clarity.
A problem arises because as a system, we need “stuff” to process. This is one of those capital T Truths; that a process needs variables.
In order to to reach a conclusion, we need a premise. A paradox arises that any premise already has its conclusion within it because the principles of logic (or the foundation for our flowing thoughts in order to reach corresponding truths) are independent of both premise and conclusion. But this principles are in themselves conclusions (just special conclusion whose premises we don’t know outside of pragmatic means (truth correspondence)).
The act of freedom or the potential for freedom is that we as a system can work within the “systems” that manifests the conclusion from the premise so as to change the premises and conclusion.
In a very broad way, then, freedom is the ability to either choose the premises and conclusion (since they’re fundamentally the same) or the ability to choose the system with which you work with.
Since you yourself are a premise by virtue of being a conclusion. And you yourself are a system since you’re operating in such as way as to be aware of premises and conclusions.
As far as the computational universe, if we are at this moment in the NOW we reached it through premises that resulted in the concluding NOW. But that’s only working within the system of having a worldview that works on a basis of discrete logic (i.e. a system where the NOW is a thing; or a phenomena that is construed as NOW).
ADDENDUM: When Nietzsche proclaimed God ded, taking the above into consideration, he was saying that pragmatically, the conclusion of God was not being used as a premise for the new systems that people were being acclimated to. That is, the system used by people to reach the conclusion to their morality, values, personal goals, etc did not include God or the relevant details associated with a belief in God (or gods). Rather the faith people factored in into their conclusion was guided towards a different conclusion; regardless of the facade of the belief in God.
ADDENDUM 2: Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man would be a work of art that depicts a system where the premises of ones own traits determine their conclusion in the system without the autonomous input of the protagonist. Because of the very fact that the system is a premise and a conclusion in the system of the protagonist.
ADDENDUM 3: A work of art would be the conclusion of a premise and system without access to the premise or system.
So when someone creates a work of art (or we see the universe as a work of art), we are only seeing the evidence of a conclusion and must use that conclusion within other systems (including our own aesthetic consumption) without knowing the premise or system that produced it. The premise and system is evident in the conclusion but without conclusive details.
ADDENDUM 4: Critical Thinking is approaching each facet of the process (premise, conclusion, system) and examining if the systems are actually in harmony. If the premises and conclusion correspond to each other relative to the system. This self-referencing process (since the process itself explains itself) is self-referencing; it’s a closed system. The question is whether all systems are ultimately closed systems (predetermined, etc).
ADDENDUM 5: Icons are conclusions you take at face value without any critical thinking. We need icons by virtue of it being exhausting to critically analyze all the conclusions in the world through our own modest and humble systems. Although icons can be used for maliciousness and evil; especially if we artificially create icons to deceive others.
ADDENDUM 6: The human conclusion can be ultimately justified in the terms that Kierkegaard said.
1. The aesthetic: our appreciation of the premises and conclusion can arise from a system of aesthetic appreciation.
2. The ethical: our appreciation of the premises and conclusion can arise from a system of ethics
3. The religious: our appreciation of the premises and conclusions can arise from a belief in a conclusion that is irrespective of our ethics or aesthetic appreciation
The logical conclusion of the aesthetic and ethical is always reached by virtue of their premises; the religious does not have a logical conclusion because of its ethereal nature
ADDENDUM 7: You can probably translate ADDENDUM 6 into a Nietzschean worldview or a Buddhist worldview or a Schopenhauer worldview or a Dana Ross worldview. You can probably translate this whole post to Spanish or French or Klingon; the premises and conclusions will change. It’s just a question of changing the premises and conclusion by changing the system that interprets it. It’s not an impressive feat to have a worldview. Everyone has one. Just that some are more notable than others.
ADDENDUM 8: This post brought to you by the systems: Universe, Earth, 2018, Human Language, English, (a poor excuse for) Logic, Some organic system ^(this is actually referring to you since you’re the system operating within all these other systems to reach the conclusion [this conclusion and all other]), etc, etc.
AWILCTLBCs
