|
Much of 'human affairs' is predicated on beliefs evolved out of 'primitive situations of consequently de_facto ignorance' -'natural rights' as 'self-evident' for example, and therefore an eventual 'knowing right from wrong and good from evil'. -But the fact is that any 'right' either has 'forensic integrity' or it is not 'right' at all. |
- forensic integrity-
- essential consistency and nonambiguity in communication (oral or written), and therefore essential reliance upon rigorously qualified definitions and consistent use of language-and-words to the exclusion of 'noumena'.(-from Introduction)
-Human progression and evolution are intrinsically a matter of deliberative capability and forensic integrity -the extent to which communication and discussion can develop with relative consistency and nonambiguity -a matter of 'knowledge
discovery and transportability':
- If 'integrity of substance and learning' is not addressed during formative years, it tends to become reinforced and resident as 'mere opinion' without such integrity as one grows up. It is a matter, simply, of the material of routine education
centering on the tools of society and civilization and not on that 'material and its integrity'. Because of this, people enter society with religious, ethnic and 'political' opinions modified largely by personal circumstance -opinions of
tenuous and essentially unimportant substance in quotidian life. Should one go on to higher education in the soft sciences of such material however -law, politics, economics et cetera, that tenuous integrity becomes part of the
institutionalized opinion that has so far served to determine the nature and course of society and civilization -ergo 'the human condition'.
Page 2
As to discussion criteria regarding this essay, then-
Human speech evolved, discussion 'inevitable', one might ask whether there are some kind of criteria that should be decided upon before entering discussion -and there are in that there are essentially three, more or less exclusive classes or domains of
substantively different conveyance.
1 - There is, first, the rigorous 'peer review' discussion associated the hard sciences and mathematics wherein 'any questionable language construction' is ultimately refinable into complete non-ambiguity and transportability (below)
-discussion closure always possible.
3 - There is, third, the classical discussion of more or less common 'opinion expression and manipulation' in which (typically) 'higher-order, more encompassing substance' is argued or disputed out of frequently noumenal
substance or idiomatics of some kind (below) -non-ambiguity impossible because certain words fundamental to the discussion cannot be unambiguously defined; discussion, consequently, is open-ended -the 'proper' substance of morality
and immorality, for example.
2 - There is second then -between the two, 'the texturally true and professionally followable discussion' of (generally) 'hard' academics and the soft sciences in which likewise 'higher-order, more encompassing substance is argued or
disputed' -but out of 'professionally accepted material and (essentially) no seeming need of transportability' (such as may not be meetable anyhow) -conjecture material, typically, but physically-based, such as 'what function REM sleep
serves the brain' and 'how to best prevent interracial fighting among prisoners'.
These distinctions are important in that there is such a thing as a 'transportable nature and course of human evolution and progression and it will be incorporated -and it is textural discussion then (second domain), that is the
agency of such first domain material into third domain assimilation -which brings us to the last of these 'criteria':
4 - Thruout these essays, single-apostrophies are generally used to tag 'ideational entities' -'high-order' but fundamentally unambiguous (transportable) material the immediate or local qualification or pursuit of which would be digressive
to essay purpose
-'higher-order definition existing' as opposed to 'non-transportable substance of inadequate common definition': it is typically material such as is here apostrophied that, used unapostrophied (pursued or not), 'means different things to
different people' -'value-based', for example, as opposed to 'validity of value-base' or the 'purpose of life' as compared with 'the nature and course of human evolution and progression'. -The bottom line here is-
When you see apostrophes, BE CAREFUL and do not leap to conclusions.
Page 3
(*b) [The Supreme Court of the US is an especially interesting case in that it actually serves to put forensic integrity into the operations of government by 'testing' (typically) discrete applications of government -laws or not, against The Constitution. The peculiarity of this situation is that The Constitution is itself a construction of ambiguous and imprecise words, but this overall mechanism works nevertheless (however inefficiently), because of the manifest combination of evolutionary process -the certainty of 'ever improving knowledge superceding idiomatics(*6) and noumenalisms', and the dirigiste heurism(*0) inherent 'the highest court of the land' (unless, of course, it happens [unlikely] to be 'loaded with idiots'). It should be noticed, with respect to that Constitution 'ambiguity and imprecision', that it is only a matter of time before something of an inevitable and true Dirigiste Heurism inhabits government and supercedes the constitution itself.]
There are only two modes of non-trivial discussion: explorative -two people working some analysis or resolution of some matter or situation, and instructive -one person communicating knowledge of some such thing to another. The problems
with 'non trivial' discussion then, come about thru the evolution of speech as inseparable from evolved, prohominid ignorance and (not uncoincidental) our being ever new-born into such primitivity, thus there is little of 'classical' (thus-far)
communication that does not employ words of non-rigorous definition and of meaning in some sense peculiar to each of its principals. This understanding is fundamental to meaningful communication in that only insofar as it is subscribed -hewing to
something of forensic integrity, is 'digression averted and discussion successful'(*1); it is only in matters of limited domain, phenomenological or otherwise rigorous, that some measure of 'forensic integrity' obtains(*2).
[One knows that '2+2=4' by fact of its transportability, but one does NOT 'know what he did on the night of January 15' or that 'the Democrats (or Republicans) are responsible for the sorry state of ... (whatever)' -except, perhaps, by
presenting phenomenologically-based evidence qualified to that end, accordingly, as 'circumstantial' and/or 'statistical'; likewise, one does not 'know what the framers of The Constitution had in mind' -nor, given human dynamics, does such
document (or any such legislation for that matter) have 'forensic integrity' now that, by some stretch of the imagination, it might have had then.]
Page 4
Man is man because he registers information in a way, physically, that we identify as 'deliberative', and therefore we say he 'cogitates', and for a cogitating man born in ignorance, to register 'response to stimulus' is to develop 'a hierarchy of registration' is to begin the invention of explanation which may have nothing whatsoever to do with his configuration space as 'he thinks he understands it', such understanding as 'may be favorable' to his progression - but only circumstantially so (The System of Human Experience), thus it is NOT true (except as a trivialization) that 'It is the nature of man to ask questions', but it is true that man has evolved (circumstantially) to 'ask' questions and also (eventually) to 'perceive that as his nature' -never surfacing in general then, is the critically incisive question-
- Do you understand that you may not, at this particular moment, possess the knowledge necessary to follow a phenomenologically integral argument for (eg) 'the order of things' that does not entail a belief in god? -that properly attributes
'the order of things' to the nature of matter(*3) -that, perhaps, you may not understand what I'm talking about?
[-not to mention the hierarchy implicit these questions?]
-It is misinformation and uncertainty in the facts of human affairs (in politics and economics perhaps most critically) that underlie the human condition, but it is deliberative capability that clearly establishes 'evolving registration of the
phenomenology' -increasing knowledge superceding ignorance, conjecture and opinion- as synonymous the evolution of forensic integrity: 'Who best assimilates the constitution of configuration space supercedes to progress and evolve', thus belief in
god and other dogmatics may only circumstantially or coincidently vector into knowledge(*4), but cannot ever add to it of themselves -conjecture-and-opinion become knowledge in time (or not) -probability the vector, information
with time.
['Does a tree falling in the woods make noise if no one hears it?' is resolvable -transportably, only by successive refinement of definitions.]
There is a perception of the physical world -'Flowers are pretty', 'Music sounds good' and 'There is an order to things'- that (eg) makes the existence of god 'obvious' to most people: 'How else do you explain it? -how did it get that way? -something,
Someone, had to do it' -that, further, invests human affairs with dictums of 'propriety' and 'punishment' -'How else do people know right from wrong?'
Page 5
-That one is able to ask such questions however, demonstrates only that such ideas are thinkable and words utterable, and that improbability or meaninglessness can be accepted and promulgated more or less out of circumstantiality; the 'politics of human-being', consequently, 'The resource/environment there for exploitation', 'Might is right', 'Mine, and therefore mine to do with as I choose' and 'Our way of life (customs, religion, habits, government etc) is the right way it should be' then, are the basis of bumbling discussion and irresolution thruout the world where the fact remains that 'knowledge' and 'right' either have 'forensic integrity' or they are not 'right' at all.
['Seeing to the affairs of man' (politics et cetera) and consumer/populist TV-talk-show interviews alike are all incested in their only most superficial difference of material and free-style-areopagitika'd opinionation; this 'appropriated'
understanding-and-knowledge ('classical' thinking) is exemplified by early 20th century French/British poet-statesman fundamentalist/Catholic Hilaire Belloc's observation on 'scientific observation' itself (of bacterium description he summarily rejected)
-'Oh let us never, never doubt, what nobody is sure about'. -Nor for that matter are scientists (or mathematicians!) themselves free of 'classical' communication, their non-professional and/or personal relationships and discussions no more 'consistent
and unambiguous' than lay-others' (even to professional writing, *5) -their politics and families as 'democratically screwed-up' as anyone else's.]
But it is 'political' dialogue in general that is neither exploratory nor instructive, that is rather, one of 'bargaining in dialectic commodities' for which that 'certainty of language' is neither requested nor sought -nor for that matter, possible; it
is, rather, dialogue of essentially adversarial mode, driven and buried under layers of idiomatics(*6). Following are excerpts from three September 6, 1993, Los Angeles Times Opinion essays (footnoted
below) on essentially unrelated subjects. They are representative of the use of words in 'the resolutions of human affairs' (-context not a factor) that, intrinsically, cannot but 'reprecipitate unintended and undesired re-resolution'.
- 1 - 'Its survival [American labor] lies in pursuing worker interests worldwide, not continued US domination ... Multinational corporations have no national allegiance nor do they find it necessary to appease unions.'(*7)
2 - 'Vouchers would offer less bureaucracy and better education... The worse things get, the more credence for the [left's] basic line that American society will never get better unless they are ... put in charge.'
3 - 'Middle East: The Israeli-Palestinian agreement is a triumph of realism, not virtue, and of mutual self-interest.'(*8)
[The language-and-words of the Clinton impeachment proceedings at the time of this update is 'a torrent more of the same'(*9). Be that what it be-]
Page 6
Anyone arguing that the language in these excerpts is 'mere rhetoric in advance of realistic, hard-coin bargaining' misses the point; it is 'hard coin' at the bargaining table, but the substance arbitrated, manipulated and traded remains
religion, ethnicity and other 'natural human rights and freedoms' -'your concerns after mine and ours'. It is of absolutely no concern that the reader may think 'it doesn't work that way'; 'what it is a matter of' is mankind's classical evolution
having no choice but to give way to his increasingly deliberated evolution -where 'not thinking it works that way' is superceded by the phenomenology of 'it working that way regardless'. The child that tells a neighbor's, 'You can't walk
here; this is my sidewalk' becomes -uncorrected, eventually the adult that 'instructs' someone not his to instruct, 'righteously' demands answers from 'someone not his to question', physically touches 'someone not his to touch' -and goes to war
following that -'noise in the system'.
The importance of 'forensic integrity' can not be exaggerated: no one has an obligation to engage assertion, discussion or question of any kind that lacks forensic integrity -except to introduce or establish it: it is a fact of human-being that 'the nature, constitution and course of human-being' -of life-style-and-quality ultimately, can heuristically alone be determined(*a) -and to try to address and work that material without 'forensic integrity' is to continue bumbling it, ergo 'the continuing human condition'.
- There is a bottom line to 'the matter of forensic integrity', and it is that if all the various principals of a discussion cannot wrap their hands entirely about 'solely unambiguous material of discussion' -even to the inclusion of
statistical qualification if so necessary, it may be that there is absolutely no substance whatsoever in whatever conclusions they come to.
