The Criticism of Criticism: On The School of Famous Nathans

alt title: Lazily Evaluating Infinity Anonymously: On The Philosophy of Lambda

alt title 2: Knowledge is Power: Panpsychism’s Claim Examined on The Theory of Information as Energy

There’s evidence of people using logic for all of history and probably before history. There’s evidence of nonhuman animals using logic. There’s evidence of the universe using logic.

Unlocking the logic of various processes is tricky. There’s intellectual integrity faced against political powers in a struggle for answers.

Political in this sense is as abstract as intellectual. Politics doesn’t mean political parties and elections. Politics is rather a competing resolution to logic.

Political resolution to logic has been a communal resolution way before intellectual resolution was made possible. It makes sense since one our distinguishing features from nonhuman animals is intelligence.

Intelligence exists in nonhuman animals, but its quality in humans is considered advanced, self-aware, capable of conscious politics (morality).

From this conscious politics, we get the philosopher-kings: the logical conclusion between the tension of intellectualism and politics.

The sequence of events is muddy. For own logic, we have to assume that there’s an unpinning force beyond our conscious efforts that carry the bodies of the universe towards an end-goal. Establishing this “end-goal,” which we are assuming at this point, is reciprocal and, in its reciprocity, telling.

We assume there’s an end-goal. That’s a broad point.

An example is hypothesis and theories in science. Explanations are reciprocal based on the outcome of the studies/experiments/trials that give scientists data to consider the hypothesis/theories valid and sound.

Another example is saying that the number 2 signifies what we understand 2 to signify. We understand that 2 and to sound alike but function differently. We can’t say “to” + 2 = ? because we don’t have an “end-goal” for “to” in that context.

An example of how the “end-goal” is intellectual and political:

I ask you to consider that “to” = 4 in arithmetic in the next sentence. “to” + 2 = ? is now something that can be answered by the reader if they intellectually and politically validated the “to” to signify 4. And for the moment, I was a philosopher-king to the degree that readers processed the equation to get an “answer.”

Like all intellectual pursuits, the answer exists after some things are done. The intellectual person is understood to hold certain pretensions that may not be justifiable by anything other than its own intellectual existence. There are intellectuals insofar as the process is performed by actors concluding the political/intellectual logic of the universe.

For example, there’s a story of an ancient philosopher that was made fun of for their intellectual pursuit. The philosopher used their intellect to calculate some weather patterns and turned a profit growing olives. An example of political and intellectual end-goals to the logic of the universe.

For a while, the logic was understood through The Book (the Bible, the communal book that established morality). Then Plato said that there were Forms, Aristotle said there was balances, Euclid said there were shapes. End-goals that followed different logic.

Logic has since evolved to the understanding of logic we have nowadays.

Our logic of understanding of logic is split. Politically, the tension is amicable. It doesn’t impact our diet or the violence in our communities. It’s just about intellectual, abstract end-goals that have no basis for scientific understanding.

To get to this point in the writing, we explicitly assumed that the logic of our universe is founded on an anonymous force that “pushes” everything forward. A scientific-logic translation is understood through energy (force) and entropy (motivation).

We can apply the logic to different kinds of understanding. We first have to grasp intellectual pretense, which we all have. Understand how that pretense plays a role in our understanding. Define the pretense and apply logic to it.

Pretense itself is not logical. It’s just a role within the overarching, universal force that governs everything. Our pretense grasps this universality and a “self-awareness” within it that justifies the pretense.

The force we have is formless. It become in-form through logic.

This is embodied in our self-awareness and we can make the comparison of similar phenomena of logic’s embodiment found elsewhere. For example, beavers of the end-goal of a logic and the beavers themselves are evidence of this by their use of logic.

To this point, it could be said that logic is just matter responding to stimulus. And that in itself is a logic.

Do beavers have intelligence? Agency? Autonomy? What is the experience of a beaver? Do beavers have rights inherent from our self-awareness? Do beavers have rights due to them from an other agent? Is our concern better aimed at finding the logic to other questions?

The question becomes: what can we ask ourselves to better understand logic?

Regardless of the question, there will be an outcome. The outcome’s evaluation rests on a logic. Regardless of logic, we expect ourselves to be a result.

Our interests within the outcome is political, not idealistic or intellectual.

We understand the politics regardless of the intellect. The intellect can come afterwards. The morality can be an afterthought justified via a logic that complies with the politics, but the logic must comply with an accomplishment that comes between our individual evaluation and resolution of the force that pushes everything.

If we were to meditate in silence, the force would still wash over our consciousness even if we “approached” our own existential resolution of the force as that of a restful witness. The force is persistent, empowering, ongoing, relentless, untiring. We can only create a relation with it via a logic that realizes its own limitations via its own growth/empowerment.

This begs the questions: Do we grow because our logic is valid and sound or do we grow because the universe’s logic is valid and sound? The answer is found in demise.

The logic at war now is the logic of criticism. Criticism is existentially a vital organ to any intellectual process. Politics is now a struggle of what can and cannot be criticized.

A good example is sexual awareness growing sensitive to differences and struggling to create a logic compatible with embracing without judging. A bad example is self-awareness growing to the point where the only criticism allowed is the same one that has been allowed for centuries and continue to be for the sole reason of maintaining a persisting power flow.