Pending further review,
"Knowledge vastly more capable than mere information, we are born to learn infinitely more than names and numbers lost history redeems search eternal salvation present the one, true Supreme being destiny found."
Data, pure facts, are 100% accurate and precise.
Information, poor fact, is not.
All facts mutually relate as contingencies of each other.
No fact alone is ever actually thoroughly as ultimately most usefully known without knowledge of all other facts.
Ab Uno Disce Omnes
From one learn to know all.
To cognize any is to cognize all.
In order to know any fact, all contingencies of such fact must also be known. Otherwise, such fact is neither completely nor certainly "known" per se. This is implausible, if not wholly impossible, to argue against in any reasonable context. History is a list replete with rational and logical errors (hopefully) supplanted by less error in thought and its reflection. Given the glaring fact of there not being any perfect textbook, yet anyway, it is entirely probable that, in fact, we really "know" nothing at all, consciously.
(Subconsciously, we may be universally aware of everything in the same manner as everything is universally aware and intercommunicating amid the phenomenal milieu of fact being connected by electromagnetic radiation and the forces of nature. Awash in data and information, subconsciously we could know everything, but this could stand in sharp, stark contrast to how much we know consciously. If our college textbooks are any indication of what we "know", because there are no perfect textbooks, i.e. textbooks without any need for revision, we have no certain conscious knowledge of anything.)
This reveals telling inferiority inherent in conscious fact, which is always information, or poor fact. Pure fact, or data, is superior fact, but we are aware of such pure fact only in that realm of the mind which is inclusive, i.e. the subconscious, subliminal mind as opposed to the exclusive domain of the conscious mind. The exclusive conscious mind is primarily concerned with focus of thought, keeping one idea upon which concentration remains centered at the exclusion, sometimes overt ignorance, of all other thought.
So, while the conscious mind primarily excludes other, interfering thought, the subconscious mind is incapable of such mental filtration, and, as a possibly astounding result, it is entirely plausible that we do subliminally really know everything.
Data are everywhere, and all things are connected to all other things in a milieu of phenomena and epiphenomena saturated with pure fact. It only transforms into information through the attenuation of conscious thought. As a result, we ironically become prisoners of fact rather than its masters.
(While fact theory implicitly predicts its own error, just how amusing should be such prediction as its only substantially significant error?)
The best facts are plain, and among the plainest of these is that in order for any fact to be "known", per se, all contingencies of that fact must be also be known in order for a fact to really be fully known and understood absolutely. Otherwise, a (relative) fact incompletely known is merely fractionally known, and not known or cognized totally. This fact alone should honestly temper and humble our judgments about and of each other, particularly as must rationally and logically regard “reasonable doubt”.
The quality of fact varies across a full spectrum all the way from pure fact, or data, through poor fact, or information. Fortunately, it is quite safe to guess that there are nearly infinitely more data available in the universe than there is information. Unfortunately, in current events among humans, we are continually bathed and utterly saturated in the poor facts of mere information, the predominant medium of the conscious mind and mentality.
A pure fact is one without the blemishes of translation and interpretation such as those perpetually plaguing poor fact. Pure fact is 100% accurate and precise. Poor fact is not. For convenience, we refer to pure fact as data and poor fact as information. We seek to investigate whether or not such contradictory natures of fact are indeed mutually exclusive propositions. If they are, then the battle for supreme control of the mind is lost by both sides of the war between the exclusive conscious mind visiting the library and the all-inclusive subliminal mind of the librarian. Such a library exists in the minds of all who experience waking and dreaming, always hoping yet always fearing. The main question becomes one of communication between the library patron and the librarian, and this is answered affirmatively when data and information are not mutually exclusive propositions.
In the win-win scenario of there being linked the exclusive conscious mind to the inclusive subliminal awareness there is ironic conflict as the self seeks to select what is “best” of all available alternatives of given situations and challenges. Though both the conscious mind and the subconscious mind benefit from their mutual synergy, their differing sign and symbol modes used for contact and communication often confuse each other, and error is the result, usually of some anticipated outcome. To complicate this, inherent in having differing symbol semiotics is the implication of contradiction in priorities between the conscious mind and the subliminal mind, undermining the synergy from which both mental processes benefit by successful adaptation, among other things. The library patron and the librarian may speak the same language, but they don’t always make sense to each other because they tend to do things in opposite ways. The library patron is only looking for and, therefore, paying attention to only one particular idea to the total exclusion of all other ideas available in the library on any particular visit. The librarian is primarily concerned about keeping all the books in order, remembering the best to keep while trying to forget the bad ones thrown out, where references are and so on.
The subconscious mind absorbs all sensory input and files it away for future reference in terms of efficient simplicity, hence the profusion of various basic and primitive forms of “shorthand” symbolism to cue memory and motivation. While the methods and functions of the old subliminal mind are ancient, the modern conscious mind uses the sharp clarity of reason and logic to sort memories and synthesize facts into useful predictions. So much effort in consciousness requires a daily dose of sleep, during which time the mind is no longer sufficiently aware to support vivid thought or concept. While the subconscious mind remains active our dreams become somewhat amorphous, but sometimes we awaken to remember dreams. In such instances another link is established between the conscious and unconscious mind.
A fact is only really completely known when all contingencies of such fact are known a priori.
This requires knowledge of all facts because all facts are mutually contingent upon each other. Due to the exclusive nature of conscious thought and memory, it seems doubtful that we consciously know anything at all, and evidence of this lies in the fact of there not being any form of a perfect textbook, on any subject. On the other hand, due to the inclusive nature of subliminal thought and memory, it is plausible that we do know everything subconsciously. However, such modern sophistication as language, word or number is far too complicated to be handled by the subconscious in a manner which is obvious to the conscious mind.
It has been said that telling the truth during times of mass deception is an act of revolution, but if we have never seen beyond deceptive illusions, then we have probably never told the truth, so none of us has yet really been revolutionary. The deceptions have primarily concerned pretentions of the true significance and perspective of ego. Anything larger than a Euclidean point in describing the size or volume of true ego is exaggeration. Anything regarded as more significant than its relations to other such points is superfluous. Ego is substantial only in context with other egos. In and of itself, ego is without relation, hence devoid of any and all true meaning, or intellectually legitimate validation.
If we’re hardly, if ever really right, then why aren’t we happy, as Slartibartfast implied so limited to be our choice, with his clever, or empty, rhetoric, to be legitimately or plausibly of common avail? Indeed, what always, inevitably must just turn any and all so-called “absolute” into “obsolete”?
“History doesn’t really repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Mark Twain
Karma, the Ten Commandments, Shariah, Et Al
Present human knowledge points to the greatest likelihood that law is the fundamental principle a priori to any and all phenomena or event. Law is more primal than philosophy, science, mathematics, space, motion or physics in form and function in any system or process.
Perhaps the oldest understanding in the human cognition of Law, the never violable principle implicit in the relationship between cause and effect, formalized in the ancient Indian concept of karma, related causal function in one life to effective form in a successive life, in a series of reincarnations called “samsara”. According to this very old paradigm, proper function inspired by good will is always supremely rewarded by progressive reincarnations into higher, more capable form, closer to divinity, whereas improper function is punished by regressive reincarnation into lower form so as to restrict capability, and therefore inhibit evil will.
This rather obvious ancient herald of evolution theory strongly suggests the plausible probability of earlier peoples’ subliminal and vague, but relatively perfect “lower” subconscious cognition attempting to link to an imperfect “higher” state of comparatively organized, concentrated, conscious awareness and comprehension seemingly vastly more well controlled by will, or the conscious will, at least. We are still trying to this very day, but, perhaps not quite as earnestly, due to the common “perception” that life has become much easier than it was, long ago.
The basic idea of good triumphing over bad is also deeply imbedded in the concept of karma. Such natural, inherent superiority of sound action, movement and its consequent position, or situation, in accord with the deictic and didactic implicit in any reasonably honest or objective observations of evolution, generally defeats entropy, and all of its manifold ramifications of ultimate doom. While people generally seem to instinctively, or otherwise intrinsically cognize some conflict inherent everywhere in nature, this eons old awareness is quite vague and amorphous when compared to the relatively sharp clarity and focus of things as viewed from the conscious perspective.
Always, in this apparently desperate struggle between good and evil, our instincts firmly direct us to raise our awareness of reality into the light of day, but it can be quite painfully blinding to open the eyes wide while the pupils are yet dilated, and visual purple is still a dominant, though transient, presence in the visual apparatus which has conventionally adapted to dim light. This is especially true if viewing an intensely disturbing scene for the first time, and such as this frightening an experience can quite effectively discourage, inhibit and constrain further investigation, examination, observation, and even curiosity.
When beings naturally attracted to beauty encounter the gruesomely corrupted and grotesque, they sometimes still see, yet quit really looking at anything much at all, for a while, anyway.
Later, derived from Mosaic Law, and tempered by the Ten Commandments, as is well described in the Hebrew Torah, “an eye for an eye,” and so on, rhetoric emphasizes specific penal consequence “required” to maintain the natural balance of forces. Vengeance will conserve a now slightly more abstracted deictic and didactic to the inherent principle of cause and effect. The main theme of cultural concern and practice here has subtly shifted from a validly sound epistemological paradigm to one more centered on political control and maintenance of an ever-growing population. This is a really risky step to take in a reality thematically centered on accurate memory, integrity, and other such main concerns with honesty and honor. There, the slope can be quite slippery, especially when “all wet”.
A less severe, more evolved, interpretation of the Ten Commandments came later from the more forgiving Christians during the advent of their influence. The Golden Rule was a noble attempt to generalize more soundly from the Mosaic Law. While the principle relating cause to effect was partially liberated from condemnation and strife, it now bore some slightly abstract stigma of uncertainty, almost as if others might not do unto you as you had done unto them. This inadvertently introduced a potentially devastating apparent subordination of God’s will to that of mortal man, betraying perhaps some fundamental weakness inherent in forgiveness for violations of the Ten Commandments.
Through the following centuries, sophistication and elaboration of methods for the codification of divine law interpretation led subsequent Semitic tribes to attempt the perfection of such codification through open, thorough, intensive and highly disciplined analysis, examination, synthesis, and definition. But the ironic results were to invent a severely strict system of interpretation so stiffly intolerant and uncompromising that one would easily be led to believe its brittle self-righteousness surely flowed from some source of divine inspiration and absolute truth. Thus, the Islamic system of law, most commonly called “Shariah”, slowly developed during the time of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad, and after his death in 632 A.D., this legal code, considered to be perfect, was rendered fixed and immutable. Shariah became a rigidly static system, perhaps somewhat resembling the ideal Omega Point postulated later on by the Catholic theologian and philosopher, Tielhard de Chardin, et al, as being the final culmination, the perfect end of divine means and purpose … and any and all dynamic …
In fact, they almost sound like “the chosen ones”, those “other” Semites.
However, in spite of such “perfections”, Shariah can be, and, according to Islam, is violated by mankind, thus completing law’s slow but sure departure from inviolability as first suggested by the Golden Rule. Such fundamental error only grows more intense and quite exaggerated through time, until it seems to be virtually infinite in its vastly overwhelming complexity, and incomprehensible by any reasonable “seeker”. The irony of its practical untenability and awkward and ungainly lack of real, applicable utility eventually becomes its feature characteristic, inadvertently manifesting some infinitely larger and vastly more capable, subtly overriding natural system of absolute checks and balances. While Shariah begins to compete with Roman-Byzantine and Persian-Sasanian organizational structures, among others, at least the Muslims have never hogtied their legal system with high paid whores and pimps, euphemized as “lobbyists”, greedily sucking the very life out of it, essentially eating the hand that feeds its insatiable avarice, and, ergo, ultimately stupidly doomed.
With such dissipation of influence quite naturally created occurring in many succeeding political acts of burgeoning legislation across the globe throughout history, real, truly active law becomes so thin in substance and capability as to have lost all durable or legitimate validation. The irony is now complete, as we are all left with “law” so codified in such extremely “well” defined terms as require several years of intensive “expert” instruction for their proper “use”. Specificities in “modern” legislation of law only dilute and then diffuse, to weaken its basic integrity and, hence its intended true effectiveness. Though this is an apparent major setback to the successful interpretation and application of natural, true, inviolable Law, it does nevertheless provide all a good opportunity for examinations of its natural integrity manifesting the ultimate metaphor symbolic of supreme sound order in the midst of apparent chaos and confusion seeming chronically, inextricably, bound to the fundamental processes of creation, or evolution, or, most probably, both, synonymous in all reality.
Incidentally, this begs the question of the present adversarial process of the current legal system being more balanced adequately by utilizing some complimentary process of co-operational discovery in some new system of bilateral investigation, for a possible example.
While the noble aspirations of Law may reveal nothing less than divinity, our absolute relation to the infinite, and probably even God, in the abysmal depths of ever more abstract, analytical, and falsely separational detail, we only seem to be vexed by none other than the one we always find lurking among all the tedium and toil, the devil.
Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.
What does all of this really mean? Could one be rather easily led to conclude that mankind’s religious path through his relatively recent, recorded history has, in all reality, been along the track of some kind of desperate escape from the rule of God? That might be a bit too tricky for a finitely mortal creature up against a universe which, by all true reckoning, seems to be utterly ruled by irony. Given this, and a vast, unbounded but nevertheless finite, positively curved space described by the great genius Einstein, we could well end up, in the very process of evasion, running right into the arms of God.
But who says we’re really finite?
Did Xenophanes’ faith that men create gods give us a clue?
Indeed, in whose image was Who really created?
It is written as all a matter of record in terms defined as in form of a long time past.
Events bound in common continuity eons periodically review pattern endless variations on a theme universal cosmos complements chaos balance nature.
Memory in essence mass wakes reciprocate rate light speed unit whole unity integrity dark speed of memory, more than light, as any way much less, mass velocity is heavy.
Now is the eternal moment this instant nexus forever the creation in actual motion through evolution relate cause effect events as historical, biblical and destined proportions in form being supreme.
Trial and error success and failure yield better bet be next time, based on past experience.
Think about it.
Fortune is true destiny and fate is false.
LAW of nature shall forever violate us before we will ever violate nature of LAW.
Desire exceeds natural balance at immortal peril.
No form functions deviate past tolerance to appeal to ultimate sanction, as oblivion must just fate failure to arrive.
Modern pedagogy in elementary academic preparation for counting numbers may be incomplete, in fact, insofar as, for example, if a prospective customer approaches a loan officer with the claim of a "number" of properties offered for collateral to secure principal funds, yet one of the following three results arises in terms of this "number" as emerges during the loan application process, i.e., one, zero or infinity, does the chance of securing such a loan decrease in respective order, and/or does the probability of being investigated for violation of, say, USC 18 § 1344 (bank fraud) proprtionately increase, not to mention prompting an examination for sanity of the prospective loan customer?
Abstract as a cursory brief:
Ancient Greeks regarded two as the first "number" as just logically consistent with the idea of plurality, thus, one, regarded as unity, was not a number, by reason of rational semantic as philosophically sound syntax. (As subsequent Roman numerals carried no symbolic representation of zero any more than their Greek predecessors had, now, a "Neo-Roman" H can.) Indeed, if zero and one are in fact not functional numbers vis à vis plurality representations, then the argument fails that zero and infinity are not reciprocal because their number product may be substituted by any algebraic extrapolation as any "other" finite number as a quantity, x, divided by infinity or zero, to equal zero or infinity, respectively.*
If one, zero and infinity are actually only the identity elements of multiplication, addition and count, as multiplication is fast addition, addition is fast count, and count is fast "infinition" by "conveniently" having conventionally "simply" skipped as merely expediently, albeit far less than ultimately truly efficiently or effectively, glossed over as past all irrationals between rational numbers as such all whole number ratios between whole numbers, in order to "count" whole numbers, as introduced without any real formality in elementary education, so, as "conveniently" imply all whole numbers between zero and/or one, and infinity to have but briefly implied all whole numbers, then what chance may be infinition is fast multiplication?
Identity elements, 1, 0 and א:
x=x×1, x=x+0 and x=x·|·א
x|·|x=א, x-x=0, x÷x=1
(Here, ·|· represents that infinition facilitates count as an arithmetic operation,
|·| represents that "refinition" function facilitates count inverse operation,
and "cardinal Aleph" [tantamount to "infinity"] is represented as א.)
Could Gödel count how incomplete arithmetic was?
Indeed, is what count values any and/or all for what it's worth, among other things?
*As no two exists in binary base-two, no eight in octal base-eight, no A in decimal base-A (9+1=10) and no G in base-G hexadecimal, in base-infinity, no infinity exists, so, every number is less than ten (10) ergo, as a single digit.
See more in the book,
GÖDEL ESCHER BACH:
An Eternal Golden Braid
by Douglas Hofstadter
(aka GEB, 1979)
M. A. Cameron