That’s Your Problem

We start with saying that, before formalism, our only option for responding at all to the intrusiveness of existence is uncriticized dogma.

Formalism, structural constructs, allow for the flourishing of such domains as math, physics, poetry. Formalism brings about the creator in us by creating us as creators relative to the formalization we bring to our surrounding.

Formalization can also be called pretense. The tension that at the moment carries our consciousness carries with it a latency that, while resulting in a concluding conscious experience, allows the conscious to act with “pre” before the next tension is felt. This “pre,” formalized, leads to creation.

The question arises, the flourishing of domains happened before even humans existed. The flourishing of different living things, their differences and similarities, the flourishing of planets and chemical elements.

Without formalism and with only uncriticized dogma, we flourish. What use is formalism?

This paradoxical question can only be answered through formalism.

Some people may argue that uncriticized dogma is evil. It leads to ignorance, etc. That formalism has obvious advantages.

Defenders of uncriticized dogma would argue that formalism is trivial. For example, uncriticized dogma has made use of Euclidean geometry for centuries while rejecting new common core methods for teaching math.

The issue with uncriticized dogma and why we shouldn’t favor it, and even why we should see it as an evil, is that the tensions of creation carry us regardless of predisposition.

Predisposition means towards something or a response. The question of destiny or purpose or ending or teleology is never measured by a conclusion but by the response. The response is a feature of the latency mentioned before. There is a response within the eternal patterns of the universe and the response reiteratively forms our own consciousness.

Dogma appears with an identity within consciousness and the use of identity to judge, construct, create.

Formalism treats identity as a by-product of creation, dogma treats identity as the goal of creation.

An example is seeing the iteration of creation (tension — latency — tension influenced by the latency) as (problem-solution-new problems created from the solution). We have the creation of a hammer. We have a problem. We create a solution. The solution presents new problems to address.

Our own existential form is free from problems as such (assuming a reader from a technologically advanced society). Our main problem is existing. The creation of an “I” is the solution to a problem we decide to take on. How we create the “I” or how we play a role in creating an “I” inherently defined the concluding “I”.

The full context is that “I”’s only exist in societies of “I”s. That the problems of “I” is the problem of “other I’s.” The approach to other I’s defines a society. Defines whether the society is uncritically dogmatic or formalists. Your problem is my problem, our problem make for us to exist as I’s.