The "Prime Number Sieve" and the utility of the stoic process in modern
society.
(This article was written after the completion of "The Stoic", specifically for Chapter 9.)
As I have spent the majority of this book wrestling with subjectivity/objectivity, God and people, continuous and discrete time, reason and science, all manners of conundrum, synthesis and consensus, I have not dealt with popular philosophical considerations, the rhetorical and sophistic statements we throw at each other in the heat of the moment. While this does not, and could not possibly, portend to be a complete list of these bemoanments, I hopefully have selected some that resonate with you.
Having covered "Is the sky blue?"in chapter 5, let us turn to these other colloquial expressions of philosophic intent: "Does the sun rise in the East?", "Is the Pope Catholic?", "Are bears bare?"( also know as "Do bears bare?", "Do bears bear?" but, rarely as "Do bears bear?" because those animals are not beasts of burden and, therefore, are not known for their capacity to carry things) and lastly, "Do bees be?"or, equally,"Do 'be's' bee?", thus, the very question of existence. Surprisingly, using the stoic process, some headway can be made against these "unknowablities" (which is not even close to being a word).
In order:
"Does the sun rise in the East?"
No, it does not, for several reasons. The first, and most obvious reason, is "the East" does not exist in objective reality, it is a subjective metaphor, an orientation supported by an objective consensus. Try as we might, no amount of looking at "the East", no amount of agreement on that direction, no amount of cartography will change the conundrum of the East meeting the West, just the second we turn our backs on them, being the sneaky concepts that they are. Should I, then, give "the East" the honor of being where the sun is first seen, as "reward" for its duplicity? I think not!!!
Secondly, the sun is the laziest object in our Local Group, indolently, insolently laying about while the rest of the solar system whirls around it, trying to get its work done so it can get out of the heat for just a little while. It only shines because it HAS to and, without the encouragement of the Local Group, would probably prefer to just sit there, contemplating its existence, as the grand philosopher and arbiter of our physical reality. You really think that guy is going to rise? No, he'll just get every other planet to do his work for him, the fat bag of gas he is. I can't respect that.
"Is the Pope Catholic?"
One would expect the overlap in the Pope's Venn diagram between the subjective vision of his faith and that of Catholicism to be very large, because that's really what you're paying for in a Pope. Having said that, there must still be some small portion of that does not overlap, both in the Pope's subjectivity and Catholicism's objectivity. So, in a strict, logical, subjectively absolute sense, the Pope is not Catholic, he's the Pope and his own unique individual, just like the rest of us, only better: well, one would hope so, right?
The other thing that truly defines a Pope is the strong neck muscles required to hold up those huge hats. I think that the vast majority of Catholics couldn't support that headgear and, looking at it as a demographic, the Pope's ability to do so sets him outside the demographic he purports to represent.
QED: the Pope isn't Catholic in the democratic or demographic senses of the word. I'm not sure what is left to him, then...
"Are bears bare?(et all)"
Yes, shamelessly so... That is the sole reason they wear clothes in all children's cartoons and, of course, at the the "Country Bear Jamboree". In this, there is wisdom.
Which leaves us with the quintessential questions: first, "Do bees be?" As bees be, so must we be, to be the we from which the bees are seen and, in between, the unseen scene from which the being of bees are being seen.
This is the essence of the object/subject duality which is reinforced by Wittgenstein. One of the first, most obvious, and, therefore, strongest corroborations of the separation of logic and mathematics is the prime number sieve which, ostensibly, requires the maintenance of illogical numerical constructs for the continuity of arithmetic. The prime numbers are the assumptions that allow mathematics to function, yet are undefined within that construct, lying outside the logic of the system and logic itself. From the "Uncertainty Principle", all things are unique, at their base, because everything occupies a unique time/space signature which has to be ignored for the idea that there is more than one of each thing. "Bees" be only on this basis, as a consensus that they are homogeneous by appearance and therefore may be counted, not as they exist as individuals, but on the basis of contiguity within the abstraction of mathematics. They are put on Procrustes Bed until the are manageable by the process used to deny their existence. "Bees" be only when they are willing to accept the non-existence required by the mathematical, scientific, objective world and are in the same boat as humans are on this basis. As bees be, so must we be, to be the we from which bees are seen...
And, in between, the unseen scene from which the being bees are being seen: from chapters 9 and 10, the fiction that results from the synthesis of the objective/subjective, the dynamic of God and people, the reason of our existence that creates not just our individual realities but reality as a whole, contiguous with continuous and discrete time. We create the fiction of our reality in just the same way prime numbers create the whole of mathematics: in the unique, irreducible necessity of our existence, the whole structure and abstraction of reality is defined by consequence and concept.
A stoic does not shrink from the confrontation of the objective world, he welcomes the opportunity to create the new primary sets from which the world will progress from his synthesis of his reality. We exist, and as a consequence, reality exits, not vice-versa.
We are the primes as God created us so.
(This article was written after the completion of "The Stoic", specifically for Chapter 9.)
As I have spent the majority of this book wrestling with subjectivity/objectivity, God and people, continuous and discrete time, reason and science, all manners of conundrum, synthesis and consensus, I have not dealt with popular philosophical considerations, the rhetorical and sophistic statements we throw at each other in the heat of the moment. While this does not, and could not possibly, portend to be a complete list of these bemoanments, I hopefully have selected some that resonate with you.
Having covered "Is the sky blue?"in chapter 5, let us turn to these other colloquial expressions of philosophic intent: "Does the sun rise in the East?", "Is the Pope Catholic?", "Are bears bare?"( also know as "Do bears bare?", "Do bears bear?" but, rarely as "Do bears bear?" because those animals are not beasts of burden and, therefore, are not known for their capacity to carry things) and lastly, "Do bees be?"or, equally,"Do 'be's' bee?", thus, the very question of existence. Surprisingly, using the stoic process, some headway can be made against these "unknowablities" (which is not even close to being a word).
In order:
"Does the sun rise in the East?"
No, it does not, for several reasons. The first, and most obvious reason, is "the East" does not exist in objective reality, it is a subjective metaphor, an orientation supported by an objective consensus. Try as we might, no amount of looking at "the East", no amount of agreement on that direction, no amount of cartography will change the conundrum of the East meeting the West, just the second we turn our backs on them, being the sneaky concepts that they are. Should I, then, give "the East" the honor of being where the sun is first seen, as "reward" for its duplicity? I think not!!!
Secondly, the sun is the laziest object in our Local Group, indolently, insolently laying about while the rest of the solar system whirls around it, trying to get its work done so it can get out of the heat for just a little while. It only shines because it HAS to and, without the encouragement of the Local Group, would probably prefer to just sit there, contemplating its existence, as the grand philosopher and arbiter of our physical reality. You really think that guy is going to rise? No, he'll just get every other planet to do his work for him, the fat bag of gas he is. I can't respect that.
"Is the Pope Catholic?"
One would expect the overlap in the Pope's Venn diagram between the subjective vision of his faith and that of Catholicism to be very large, because that's really what you're paying for in a Pope. Having said that, there must still be some small portion of that does not overlap, both in the Pope's subjectivity and Catholicism's objectivity. So, in a strict, logical, subjectively absolute sense, the Pope is not Catholic, he's the Pope and his own unique individual, just like the rest of us, only better: well, one would hope so, right?
The other thing that truly defines a Pope is the strong neck muscles required to hold up those huge hats. I think that the vast majority of Catholics couldn't support that headgear and, looking at it as a demographic, the Pope's ability to do so sets him outside the demographic he purports to represent.
QED: the Pope isn't Catholic in the democratic or demographic senses of the word. I'm not sure what is left to him, then...
"Are bears bare?(et all)"
Yes, shamelessly so... That is the sole reason they wear clothes in all children's cartoons and, of course, at the the "Country Bear Jamboree". In this, there is wisdom.
Which leaves us with the quintessential questions: first, "Do bees be?" As bees be, so must we be, to be the we from which the bees are seen and, in between, the unseen scene from which the being of bees are being seen.
This is the essence of the object/subject duality which is reinforced by Wittgenstein. One of the first, most obvious, and, therefore, strongest corroborations of the separation of logic and mathematics is the prime number sieve which, ostensibly, requires the maintenance of illogical numerical constructs for the continuity of arithmetic. The prime numbers are the assumptions that allow mathematics to function, yet are undefined within that construct, lying outside the logic of the system and logic itself. From the "Uncertainty Principle", all things are unique, at their base, because everything occupies a unique time/space signature which has to be ignored for the idea that there is more than one of each thing. "Bees" be only on this basis, as a consensus that they are homogeneous by appearance and therefore may be counted, not as they exist as individuals, but on the basis of contiguity within the abstraction of mathematics. They are put on Procrustes Bed until the are manageable by the process used to deny their existence. "Bees" be only when they are willing to accept the non-existence required by the mathematical, scientific, objective world and are in the same boat as humans are on this basis. As bees be, so must we be, to be the we from which bees are seen...
And, in between, the unseen scene from which the being bees are being seen: from chapters 9 and 10, the fiction that results from the synthesis of the objective/subjective, the dynamic of God and people, the reason of our existence that creates not just our individual realities but reality as a whole, contiguous with continuous and discrete time. We create the fiction of our reality in just the same way prime numbers create the whole of mathematics: in the unique, irreducible necessity of our existence, the whole structure and abstraction of reality is defined by consequence and concept.
A stoic does not shrink from the confrontation of the objective world, he welcomes the opportunity to create the new primary sets from which the world will progress from his synthesis of his reality. We exist, and as a consequence, reality exits, not vice-versa.
We are the primes as God created us so.
