Note About the Name

This blog was originally conceived as containing critiques of old (already dead) philosophers. That's the reason for it's name.

Ruling Over Tens and Hundreds Part I

Some human systems are characterized by very deep hierarchies; this is especially true of social systems that have been "designed", like corporations, militaries, etc. It is a natural tendency for packs of animals to pick leaders, the final purpose being to make the pack (or "team") function by removing lag and contention in decision making[1]. A human hierarchy is the iterative application of this principle. By contrast social systems that have not been designed are networks.

In terms of graphs a hierarchy (or tree) is described as a connected, unidirectional graph. The nodes at the bottom of the hierarchy are called leaves.

This tendency toward hierarchies is also displayed in the way we think about reality, for example a hierarchy (or tree) of cell fates is postulated for stem cells, evolutionary tree diagrams; even though in both cases a completely real picture would involve a more complex graph than a hierarchy (for example cell fate is considerably more plastic than originally believed and is even difficult to define; viruses and parasites can cut across kingdoms of lower order animals etc.)

But thinking in terms of hierarchies is easy, so it persists.

In the case of designed social systems, a principle, or multiple principles, must govern the construction of the hierarchy. Design principles of hierarchies include breakdown by function, responsibility, authority, etc. In addition, all human systems are animated by a history, and the rationale of the original design tends toward obscurity as time passes.

Most designed human systems are constructed to fulfill a responsibility: make a profit, fight a war, build a great project, defend the members, negotiate an outcome etc.

In a hierarchy designed to fulfill an ultimate responsibility, in which each node is organized by responsibilities and freedoms (i.e. a certain department, team, or group must accomplish X, while it has the authority from a higher hierarchical level to use A and do B and C) the ability of each node to function tends to be more difficult to the extent that the hierarchy is rigid, large and complex.

NOTE TO AUTHOR: Insert link to Ruling over Tens and Hundreds Part II

Attempt One: Present + Is

Many have tried to derive reality from some small set (or even one) axiom (I think therefore I am etc.). But if reality is fundamentally a Whole, then any of its characteristics should implicitly contain all others (including the one just used i.e. Whole) and it shouldn't matter where you start. The starting point will be undefinable and all other concepts should be able to be defined in terms of the starting point itself and the word "is".

Reality is.

I will try to sketch out a stub of reality based on the concept of Now or Present.

Only one eternal Now or Present exists, where we are or "be". No "now's" have come before, because there can always only be one Now, and it is ever present to us as long as we exist. But the concepts "past" and "future" are useful, but very tricky.

The past is accessible, although imperfectly, via symbols (or signs) in the Present. The future is one symbol that stands for a now different from the current one, but containing the same signs of the past plus signs of now. 

Define communication as the creation of permanent signs of the present (creation can only be created in the present), and the decoding of those signs in the present (decoding can only take place in the present). This is a definition that does not require the concept of Time (it introduces Time implicitly), but only a reality to be encoded and decoded, and a Present.

A sign says "bridge ahead", but the bridge has been destroyed, what does the sign point to?

Something must "be", if it does not "be" then it is nothing. But the word "is" cannot be assigned to a subject that does not "be". Therefore "Nothing" is only definable as a sign, pointing toward something that cannot be defined. That's how I deal with what is beyond me, by making signs and using those signs as intelligible objects, even when those signs point to zero intelligibility.

Every act is only in the present. An act that has reached its conclusion is no longer an act.

I have to start over now, Attempt One is becoming to confusing and lacks a good structure.