Monday, December 3, 2012
Empedocles
So it turns out that one of the ancient Greek philosophers essentially anticipated my ideas regarding the "and" and the "or" 2500 or so years ago. Empedocles called the principles "love" and "strife", where love represented the coming together and strife the breaking apart into a thing's constituent parts. He also saw a cyclical process in which one precedes the other, and even, to a large extent, anticipated evolutionary theory by proclaiming that some groups of parts will randomly come together and survive, while others will not. As we've seen, the cyclical view of history has largely proven correct with great empires, whether it be the Roman empire or the Soviet Union, imploding, different countries uniting and or being absorbed by others again and again and again. Similarly, the cyclical theory of love and strife holds on a cosmic level with the big bang, dust coalescing to form suns and planets, lighter elements combining and becoming compressed in suns to form heavier elements, suns exploding when their lives expire, black holes absorbing matter and eventually compressing it to the point that new bangs occur and new universes are formed. As I've demonstrated, love and strife are at work everywhere, whether it be on a mathematical, a molecular, cellular, linguistic, biomechanical or evolutionary level. Empedocles was right. The PreSocratics, including the Sophists, were the greatest. Socrates and Aristotle ruined everything.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Leafing through the pages of a book
It is interesting how the "and" and the "or" is even evident when one turns the pages of a book. For what happens when this occurs? The reader separates the page from the pages that come after it "the or", and groups it with the other pages he has read, "the and". It would seem that in the universe that we know, the "and" and the "or" act simultaneously. When an object moves away from another, it is moving towards yet another. To a large extent, the "and" and "or" work in harmony and maintain a balance. It may seem possible, depending upon the nature of space, for an object to drift away from the universe of other objects. But even in this scenario the "and" is still operative. For when this object is drifting away from the universe of other objects, there is an observer (you) observing this, and the more you are observing this, the more this object, in a sense, is drifting towards you, or you are drifting towards it.
Relationships
I have been away for some time, lost in the events of the world.
We must ask what all events have in common. And the obvious answer is that they are events. Whether they are mathematical equations, equations describing chemical reactions, the laws of physics or biology, or history they describe events.
And what do events describe? They describe relationships. Relationships between objects. And I have argued that all relationships involve the "and" and the "or". Thus, if we are looking for that part of reality that exists everywhere, that will always be and (possibly) always has been, then we can say that the relationship is the most fundamental eternal thing.
We must ask what all events have in common. And the obvious answer is that they are events. Whether they are mathematical equations, equations describing chemical reactions, the laws of physics or biology, or history they describe events.
And what do events describe? They describe relationships. Relationships between objects. And I have argued that all relationships involve the "and" and the "or". Thus, if we are looking for that part of reality that exists everywhere, that will always be and (possibly) always has been, then we can say that the relationship is the most fundamental eternal thing.
Friday, May 4, 2012
M or F
We can say that the "or" is distinctively male in character. Think Sampson pushing apart the columns. Think freedom from slavery or other forms of subjugation. Any unity that the "or" may seek, whether in the form of copulation or conquest, is temporary, a means towards hegemony. The Romans conquered so they could be great. A man screws to attain genetic dominance.
The "and" is distinctively female in character. It seeks togetherness and unity for its own sake. It is incomplete unless it is with. And even with that withness, it will always be incomplete.
And the unity between the "and" and "or", while temporary, is often more powerful than the bond between the "and" and "and". Think the penis, jutting out, wishing to express its power and dominance, only to be sucked in by that which seeks unity for its own sake. The penis withdraws to preserve the illusion of dominance, so that the man can tell his friends about his conquests, so that the "or" can continue to exist. And this is the natural state of things. The "and" and always existed and the "or" has always existed.
Even before the "big bang" the "or" existed. Perhaps everything was unity as has been theorized. Perhaps electrons and nuclei and protons and elements and atoms and the various elements had not come into existence. Perhaps all was one "super atom". But this state of affairs could not last indefinitely. For the "or" was always there. Just like energy can be neither created or destroyed and is always there in either potential or actual form, the "or" can be neither created or destroyed. Perhaps it was not there prior to the big bang, at least in actual form. But it was there in its potential form. Perhaps it existed exclusively in its potential form at that time, but it existed. And its prevalence has neither increased nor diminished. Nor will it ever increase or diminish. Perhaps entropy is increasing as the universe continues to expand. Perhaps galaxies continue to be pushed farther and farther apart as astronomers say. But the "or" is not increasing in prevalence. Its form may be changing from potential to actual. But it always was there and always will be there. (My earlier entry about the "or" running wild was a joke).
We can say the same about the "and". It has always been there and always will be there. It can neither be increased nor diminished. Perhaps, in contrast to the "or", it existed only in actual form prior to the big bang. Perhaps it has morphed in form from actual to potential. And perhaps, at the end of time, it will be pure potential. But like energy, it can neither be created nor destroyed.
Our friends were with us forever.
The "and" is distinctively female in character. It seeks togetherness and unity for its own sake. It is incomplete unless it is with. And even with that withness, it will always be incomplete.
And the unity between the "and" and "or", while temporary, is often more powerful than the bond between the "and" and "and". Think the penis, jutting out, wishing to express its power and dominance, only to be sucked in by that which seeks unity for its own sake. The penis withdraws to preserve the illusion of dominance, so that the man can tell his friends about his conquests, so that the "or" can continue to exist. And this is the natural state of things. The "and" and always existed and the "or" has always existed.
Even before the "big bang" the "or" existed. Perhaps everything was unity as has been theorized. Perhaps electrons and nuclei and protons and elements and atoms and the various elements had not come into existence. Perhaps all was one "super atom". But this state of affairs could not last indefinitely. For the "or" was always there. Just like energy can be neither created or destroyed and is always there in either potential or actual form, the "or" can be neither created or destroyed. Perhaps it was not there prior to the big bang, at least in actual form. But it was there in its potential form. Perhaps it existed exclusively in its potential form at that time, but it existed. And its prevalence has neither increased nor diminished. Nor will it ever increase or diminish. Perhaps entropy is increasing as the universe continues to expand. Perhaps galaxies continue to be pushed farther and farther apart as astronomers say. But the "or" is not increasing in prevalence. Its form may be changing from potential to actual. But it always was there and always will be there. (My earlier entry about the "or" running wild was a joke).
We can say the same about the "and". It has always been there and always will be there. It can neither be increased nor diminished. Perhaps, in contrast to the "or", it existed only in actual form prior to the big bang. Perhaps it has morphed in form from actual to potential. And perhaps, at the end of time, it will be pure potential. But like energy, it can neither be created nor destroyed.
Our friends were with us forever.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Movement again
We have said that the "and" and the "or" underlie all of reality in all its spheres, whether it be physical reality, mathematical reality, language, history or epistemology. However, to construct a truly unified theory of the world, we must ask if there one principle, reality or commonality these two forces share. And the answer should be obvious: movement. Objects, concepts, principles coming together, drifting apart or distinguishing themselves from one another have their genesis in movement. As long as there is movement there will be atoms with orbiting electrons, light travelling at light speed, words joining together and forming sentences, sentences forming distinct units, paragraphs distinguishing themselves from other paragraphs, rivers that run, dramas, and history at a human, animal, planetary and astronomical level. It is this movement that artists, such as DeKooning, with his bursts of yellow, sought to capture, and it is movement that Heraclitus intuited and sought to describe long before Plato founded his academy. And movement contains its own mystery. For movement in and of itself does not tell us whether things are coming together or drifting apart. But the mystery is beautiful. It gives birth to color, to light and to history. And to contemplate this movement, perhaps, is to contemplate God.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
An Andorian analysis of certain team sports
It was occurring to me that over the past several years, the Knicks' repeated attempts to "buy" a championship team have failed miserably. The Yankees' attempts to do the same thing have by and large succeeded. Which allows us to weave our Andorian methodology into our analysis of team sports.
Baseball is largely a game of individual statistics. The role of the "and" is less prominent in baseball than it is in basketball or football. Each batter faces off individually against the pitcher. Each fielder individually fields ground or fly balls. Sure, the shortstop has to throw to first base. The catcher suggests how the pitcher should throw. However, there are a finite variety of plays that can be run. It is not necessary that players acclimate to each other to perform well. Baseball is largely a game of individual performances. If the pitcher pitches well, and the hitters and fielders perform at a high level, the team does well. The "or" predominates, and the "and" benefits from a powerful "or". A team of superstars, all in their prime, will thrive. As George Steinbrenner repeatedly proved, championships can be bought.
Basketball is different. The performance of each player is highly dependent upon the actions of his teammates. An offensive talent cannot thrive if his teammates don't get him the ball. While few doubt that Karl Malone would have been an excellent player on most teams, it is unlikely he would have been a great player were it not for a John Stockton repeatedly feeding him when he was open. (And Stockton would have been fairly mediocre were it not for Malone.). I believe we can say that in basketball, to a greater extent than baseball, the "and" predominates. The "or" is certainly not subjugated by the "and". Great teams invariably have at least a couple of great players. But the "or" is largely dependent upon the "and". Great players cannot thrive unless they work well together. And that is why attempts to buy or design great teams have often failed so miserably. The Knicks are a prime example. An idiot named James Dolan disregarded the advice of several people more knowledgable than he was and traded away several budding players to acquire a superstar named Carmelo Anthony. The team already had one superstar, Amare Stoudemire, and he believed that adding a second would create an unbeatable combination. It didn't happen. Carmelo shot and shot and shot, missing more often than he hit. Amare faded. The team sank. Similar examples abound. Lebron James believed that teaming up with another superstar, Dwayne Wade, and a star, Chris Bosch, would guarantee a ring. While no one could deny they did well, they fell well short of his unrealistic expectations. He and Wade could not consistently have 40 point games on the same night. When one was hot, the other took a back seat and sometimes lost interest. In basketball, it seems, the whole if often considerably less than the sum of its parts.
I would submit that the "and" predominates even more in football than it does in basketball. The team moves like a multicelled animal up and down the field. The quarterback can only throw if his blockers are protecting him. No one would ever say that a football team can win without excellent players. However, cohesion is built into the game, and more than any other american sport, a prerequisite for success. The receiver can only catch if the quarterback's throw is relatively on target. The vaunted touchdown, the momentary victory of the "or" that occurs when a player separates himself from the others in the endzone, only occurs when the "and" functions at the highest level. The number of plays that can be sketched for a basketball team is great, (particularly in comparison to that can be drawn up for a baseball team.) The number that can be sketched for a football team is infinite.
Baseball is largely a game of individual statistics. The role of the "and" is less prominent in baseball than it is in basketball or football. Each batter faces off individually against the pitcher. Each fielder individually fields ground or fly balls. Sure, the shortstop has to throw to first base. The catcher suggests how the pitcher should throw. However, there are a finite variety of plays that can be run. It is not necessary that players acclimate to each other to perform well. Baseball is largely a game of individual performances. If the pitcher pitches well, and the hitters and fielders perform at a high level, the team does well. The "or" predominates, and the "and" benefits from a powerful "or". A team of superstars, all in their prime, will thrive. As George Steinbrenner repeatedly proved, championships can be bought.
Basketball is different. The performance of each player is highly dependent upon the actions of his teammates. An offensive talent cannot thrive if his teammates don't get him the ball. While few doubt that Karl Malone would have been an excellent player on most teams, it is unlikely he would have been a great player were it not for a John Stockton repeatedly feeding him when he was open. (And Stockton would have been fairly mediocre were it not for Malone.). I believe we can say that in basketball, to a greater extent than baseball, the "and" predominates. The "or" is certainly not subjugated by the "and". Great teams invariably have at least a couple of great players. But the "or" is largely dependent upon the "and". Great players cannot thrive unless they work well together. And that is why attempts to buy or design great teams have often failed so miserably. The Knicks are a prime example. An idiot named James Dolan disregarded the advice of several people more knowledgable than he was and traded away several budding players to acquire a superstar named Carmelo Anthony. The team already had one superstar, Amare Stoudemire, and he believed that adding a second would create an unbeatable combination. It didn't happen. Carmelo shot and shot and shot, missing more often than he hit. Amare faded. The team sank. Similar examples abound. Lebron James believed that teaming up with another superstar, Dwayne Wade, and a star, Chris Bosch, would guarantee a ring. While no one could deny they did well, they fell well short of his unrealistic expectations. He and Wade could not consistently have 40 point games on the same night. When one was hot, the other took a back seat and sometimes lost interest. In basketball, it seems, the whole if often considerably less than the sum of its parts.
I would submit that the "and" predominates even more in football than it does in basketball. The team moves like a multicelled animal up and down the field. The quarterback can only throw if his blockers are protecting him. No one would ever say that a football team can win without excellent players. However, cohesion is built into the game, and more than any other american sport, a prerequisite for success. The receiver can only catch if the quarterback's throw is relatively on target. The vaunted touchdown, the momentary victory of the "or" that occurs when a player separates himself from the others in the endzone, only occurs when the "and" functions at the highest level. The number of plays that can be sketched for a basketball team is great, (particularly in comparison to that can be drawn up for a baseball team.) The number that can be sketched for a football team is infinite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)