IMPORTANT COMPOUND ARTICLES

Four Quarters Of Knowledge

§ 1: 1-Deg. Abs. Knowledge, p. 1
§ 2: Paroxysm, p. 3
§ 3: Psychic Prediction, p. 3
§ 4: Souls of Literature, p. 6



I. 1-Degree Absolute Knowledge

Categorical deduction is a method I invented for formulating
coherent knowledge using an n-dimensional typology. For most
purposes it only operates in four square categories ('quadra')
lying inside a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System ('axes').

Deductions are produced when opposite terms or labels, each
being of any length, and occupying separate boxes, are arranged
to form statements that are said to express all the data that could
be expressed----because the words are analogous to everything
contained by the concepts.










The words must be opposites opposed along the diagonal, and
arranged with an order preference given to categories A and B,
which are taken to be the subject of the individual analysis.

Coherent statements are then expressed as "AB:CD and AD:
CB" in terms of A.
Since B and D are switched as part of the operation of the
deduction, the preference of B over D is actually unnecessary,
although the content is not arbitrary, as it expresses a certain
relation of judgment axis B-D with judgment axis A-C.

Examples that don't work:

"Bad women make good men." You may think this is sound
reasoning, but it does not logically follow, because if man is the
opposite of woman, they cannot both be human. The opposite of
human is at least not human.

Examples that do work:

However, you could argue bad is the opposite of good, and the
opposite of love is hate, now you can conclude that "bad hate
makes good love." That would be logically sound, because it
serves as a definition, and we know that it is not contradictory. Of
course, other types of exceptions still exist which restrain the
ultimate significance both of good and bad, and of love and hate.
The statement does not say that it is true in every possible way,
but only that it is a logically true definition which measures the
extent of validity for that exact case, insofar as the words are
accurate representations. If we want it to be measurably true, and
not just logically true, then we have to assume that the opposite
properties are measurable. And, unless they are absolute, there
is no way to be certain that the statement is coherent. However,
using similar rules, we can make more complex statements that
are equally valid, such as: "good problems with hate produce bad
solutions in love." Although more entities are involved, the more
complex statements do not have to assume the entities are real or
measurable to be logically valid. The deductions also don't
depend on the idea of cause and effect, hence the concept of 'non-
causal inference'.

Consider the example of beauty versus ugliness, and a sensitive
person versus a stoic. We don't argue that any of these entities or
qualities don't exist for some person or other.
Now, we can't compare opposites directly because that would
create a contradiction. So, we compare non-opposites. There is no
rule which says that stoics can't be ugly, or that sensitive people
can't be beautiful or ugly, etc. In fact, the only thing that would
contradict sensitivity is being stoical, and the only thing that
would contradict beauty is ugliness. (The only exception to this is
irrationality).

Now, we are not saying that stoic and sensitivity or beauty and
ugliness cannot be compared to other things, so there is no
contradiction is selecting something specific. At this point there is
no contradiction. We are comparing non-opposites, because that
is not contradictory. It is a possibility, so it can express something
about the world. Since the concepts can be defined as the only
words that represent the exact same concept, or the identical
concepts are interchangeable and have only one opposite,
therefore the comparison of non-opposites represents the only
available knowledge on whatever topic the terms concern. Since it
is the only available knowledge, it is the best knowledge, and
where opposite terms are exclusive of all possible descriptions, it
is also universal knowledge. Now it follows that 'a beautiful stoic
is ugly sensitively' and, under different conditions, 'an ugly stoic
is beauty-sensitive'. Otherwise, the terms are not opposites, or
there is opportunity to resolve the contradiction often resulting in
a simplification of categories, or there is a paradox or irrationality.

What is potentially unique about the system is not just its sense
of double relativism which I call relative absoluteness, but the
way it works across language, and for any extreme concept.

For assumptions of the system, SEE: Nathan Coppedge's answer
to Can philosophy be axiomatized?

However, things like 'cat and dog' or 'man and woman' don't work
except in what is called a 'modal sense'. The modal sense is the
same sense as 'this lamp post to that street over there' --- it may
not in fact be opposite. However, terms like cat and dog can be
lumped into categories like animal and human, and opposites can
be imagined for them, like 'dead human' and maybe 'nativity
water' for 'alien flame' or the like. These sorts of concepts at
least set up a relationship for logical comparison coherently,
providing a meaningful standard for correspondence that was not
previously imaginable outside of science fiction and Alien
Phenomenology.


II. PAROXYSM

What is a solution to a paradox?

If it has a solution, then it was not a paradox.

So, where did the problem come from in the first-place?

Apparently, there are two types of paradoxes, problematic ones
and un-problematic ones.
But problematic ones must demonstrate something, if they can't
be resolved.

Using this logic, I arrived at the idea that every paradox must
also be a solution as well as a problem.

The solution to any paradox can be found by combining the
opposites of EVERY word in the best definition of the problem in
the same order.

But the solution is still a paradox, it just belongs to a different
universe that we might think has ideal problems. In that world,
solutions may be solved by problems!


III. Psychic Prediction

Psychic prediction may take several basic forms.

First I will describe the most basic types of prediction.

First of all, the most basic type is 0-dimensional prediction. This
consists of predicting what has already occurred, that is,
predicting the types of things that have already happened. A
second degree of this is had by predicting things that are similar
to those things that have happened. For our purposes, this can be
called simple generalization. If Henrick usually wants to play
games, perhaps he wants to play games now. This is the first
dimension of prediction, and it is the type that gains most easily
by probabilistic inductions. This method is also called specialized
prediction when it is applied to specialized modes of behavior. For
example, we can predict that a Matisse will sell high compared to
an unknown artist. We know that popular items in an auction sell
high, whereas unpopular items might not sell at all. Therefore,
there is an exponential relationship for example, between selling
a Matisse, and selling a Matisse at an auction. These kinds of
things can be predicted by studying the specific character of the
modalities and events involved in a given situation. However, if
an event is instead informal or contrived, this lends an aspect of
unpredictability. The predictions only work when all of the prior
conditions are met, and become less predictable with every
difference from the previous cases. Therefore, differences can be
used to predict differences, as another type of specialized
prediction. It may help to predict trickery or confusion (‘likely
outcomes’), rather than predicting a specific event. It should be
accepted that some conditions and choices are arbitrary. Because
we do not know if conditions will be met to satisfaction, we know
that some events are arbitrary. If the conditions are one half
different, then prediction requires a strong degree of formalism,
however that is calculated. It involves, in effect, exceeding
expectations, or coming across an event that happened just in the
same way, but as if by chance. This is one reason that scientists
have been known to require the reproduction of laboratory
conditions, even with highly predictable phenomena. Thus,
specialized predictions have some limitations.

The next type is delineative or elaborative prediction. What it
consists of is a generalization modified by additional imagination
about the significance of the factors involved. This type of
prediction can be called variablistic, because it often functions by
applying a generalization to a deduction about a variable. If
elephants are painted red, perhaps it is a sight for sore eyes, etc.
One form of this is prediction through emergence. This is not
necessarily a linear prediction because it essentially doesn’t
predict based on existing data. Nor does it predict based on
known exterior data. Instead, it involves a conclusion that
something is missing from the data. Logical conclusions are
drawn so that we can make major systemic conclusions about
what the data means. The new theory appears as if from thin air.
This is similar to the emergence of Darwinism, or the genetic
explanation of reproduction. What determines the success of
these theories is their relative importance, not necessarily the
lack of any alternative. It is the importance of the theory----its
emergence----which drives the prediction. (Many theories from
social science involve emergent theories, such as socialism and
capitalism. Instead of acting as a formal constraint, they often
expand the way that the conditions function. In this case, the
explanation is not erroneous, but instead, serves as a new
rational mode of explanation).

A third type is contingent or categorical prediction. If something
is the case, then we can predict that the things that rely upon this
first condition are modified when that category is modified. This
form of prediction works better for predicting quality differences
than actually-different conditions. However, if multiple qualities
are absent, predictions can be made about the alternatives. If
there is no snow, it can be predicted that it is not cold, or there is
a shortage of water, for instance. If it is not cold, one can predict
that it is arid or moist. If there is a shortage of water, one can
predict that it is dry, or there is a high tolerance for water. This
can also take the form of complex categorization. Attaching
variables to a given object means that predicting the outcome for
the main object affects the outcome of some, if not all, of the
variables. For example, ‘if we do something extreme, the change
might be observable. Otherwise, it is an abstract or un-
measurable form of extremity. We must have some means of
observation, or we can usually conclude that the effects are not
extreme. Or we can adopt an irrational view’.

A fourth type of prediction is coherent prediction. This is also
called synergism or epiphany. The simplest form of coherent
prediction occurs by the exclusion of all but one unlikely option.
Hella spent a hot day in the desert, and she was outdoors, and
walked several miles, time passed and she didn’t expire: she
must have brought something to drink with her. A more complex
form occurs by qualifying what it means to make a given
combination. People who have complicit sex are always lovers.
Therefore, if two people have sex, it might be complicit, and they
might be lovers. Or, something is complicit between two people. If
it is sex, they are lovers. This can even involve highly complex
phenomena. For example: Joe defines himself as an editor, but he
works as an economist. In some way he is doing economic editing.
This is the beginning of a genuinely psychic method. Attaching
judgments of fully embraced variables can be a meaningful way of
reaching for epiphanies. For example, what ‘definitely IS
something’ about a given thing? Then apply that condition to
factors like responsibility, organization, and predictability. An
exception to this is so-called ‘black swans’. In that case, one must
predict the rationale which makes something a black swan. The
rule in that case is that things are either unreasonable,
reasonable, without purpose, or serving a prescribed function.  A
method for solving black swans involves corroboration or
defaulting. This occurs when there is no better explanation
remaining for a given thing. Well, we know that such-and-such a
creature has eyes based on the related species, but nothing about
the creature looks exactly like eyes. The eyes must be these
spots on its back. Otherwise its blind. Or, black swans could exist,
as long as we know that color serves no inherent function.

Now for more genuine psychic predictions:

A second genuine form of psychic prediction involves using a
posteriori reasoning on a 0-dimensional prediction. For example,
if we know that some events are arbitrary, then we can derive
that we don’t know if some conditions will be met to satisfaction.
If we know Henrick wants to play games now, we can predict that
he usually wants to play games. This form of prediction often
involves deducing the types of statements that lead to a particular
line of reasoning: that is, predicting a rationale. Many psychics
are familiar with this way of phrasing deductions.

A third form of genuine psychic prediction involves determination
based on unstated facts. Since everyone thinks about the
opposite of what they say, at least unconsciously, combining
multiple opposite terms for terms that have been stated as
someone’s opinion, or as the definition of a motive or interest for
the person or organization, will give information about the
genuine motivations, or else the looming unknowns in the life of
the person or organization. For example, if someone states that
the first thing on their mind is their motorcycle, and the second
thing on their mind is their manhood, then you can predict that
they’re concerned about meeting someone else on a motorcycle.

A fourth form of genuine psychic prediction involves categorical
relationships. One can ask or predict ‘what is someone’s usual
mode of relation with the world?’ Then one can predict that they
use that mode of relation with their perceived opposites. For
example, an artist who expresses that the thing on his mind is
cars can be predicted ‘not to buy a painting of a car, instead you’ll
make it yourself’ (the concealed opposition is between the artist
who makes art, and his opposite, the buyer of the art. The
opposite of making a painting of a car is buying a painting of a
car). Similarly, if a business expresses itself as aggressive and
competitive, but you think they’re liars, you can predict they’ll
have contradictory marketing (‘competing truths’, since their
mode of relation is competition, and their opposite is the truth).

A fifth form of genuine psychic prediction: take any number of
factors describing a current event or situation you’re in, and
reverse the factors that are different from the subject. This can
be used to predict how someone is feeling, or what their core
motivation are. For example, an artist is at a business convention.
So they’re feeling unconventional, and they feel like making art,
since that is not a different motive from business. Or, a
philosophy society is at an art gallery. So, it thinks its popular art
(‘society’ does not conflict with ‘gallery’), and it thinks its un-
philosophical art, or tries to make connections between art and
philosophy (‘philosophy’ is different from ‘art’ or it can be
debated). Other conclusions might be that they think art is trying
to commercialize philosophy, that philosophy ought to involve
graphics, or to view art or philosophy as a socialist movement.

Those are the eight categories of prediction that I have
determined. I hope this writing may be considered useful to my
readers on this most often unrealized subject.




IV. THE SOULS OF LITERATURE


First Formula:


Soul of the book =

'If you [X] qualifier [subject of X and qualifier] [opp X clarified]'

Optionally, you can add a moral:

'The [subject of X alone] is [verb / adj. of opp qualifier]'.

Also, optionally,

Optional 2= '[A/the state / process from verb / adj.] of / is
[property of qual. of X]'

Note: For this second part, it may help to refer to the title which
I will now provide, in order to find the opp qualifier before it is
modified.


Title of book =

Usually: '[quality of X] [opp of qualifier mentioned in the soul]'
For perusal, or quick use: '[opp qualifier] [quality of X]'


The easiest way to use the formula is to generate original souls
and then find the corresponding titles by finding the most
essential, knowledgeable quality of X and then finding the
opposite of the qualifier introduced in the soul of the book.

Together with the soul the title provides a basic index of the
value of any text, and permits exponentially efficient reading.


For example,

Soul = 'If you die early enough you live'.
Optional 1= 'Death is the aging process'.

Title of book = 'Bad Archaic'
Bad [= qual. of die] Archaic [=opp of early]

Another example chosen more arbitrarily,

Soul = 'If you live surely truth may die'
Optional 1= 'The life is uncertain'.

Title of book = 'Optimal Uncertainty'
Optimal [=qual. of live] Uncertainty [= opp of surely]


Second Formula:

What naturally follows from an earlier term, sometimes in
unusual ways.

For example, "I need to pee" could be the soul of "Reigns of
Fire", since "Reigns of Fire" might follow from "I need to pee".

Better titles are more clever and data-intensive, but highly
predictable titles can be used for poor-quality literature.

At another level there is a difficulty here in predicting the bulk of
the content for a book. In some cases it can be accumulated
based on primacy, e.g. the first thing thought of in relation to the
title becomes the soul, the second becomes its second soul, etc.
with due attention to appropriateness to determine every time
which title the content refers to.

On another level it is important to choose the best title for each
writing, not just a very good one, and this leads to a multiplicity of
titles with very little content.

Various formulas are suggested, such as a book that consists
entirely of a list of other titles, a book that lists only the souls of
other books, or a book that brings together the best parts of
related works in a comparison. However, as a rule these are
'schizo-forms' of the true literature, which must in this case simply
be a collection of all the best content that matches a title. This
seems to require a degree of omniscience, as if one could read all
the books in the Ancient Library of Alexandria, all translated into
perfect English.

Thus, the second method is not to be preferred, although it is the
inspiration for the first. However, creating a program that works
on this method is not impossible, if the correct rules are known,
such as:

1. The first soul of the book exclusively anticipates the title.
2. The second soul is based on the first soul.
3. Content is expanded based on souls of the book.
4. All content in some way refers to the title, or the souls, insofar
as the souls are exclusive.
5. If the souls are not exclusive, additional content may be shared
with another book.
6. Additional content is the sole basis for extraneous organization
apart from a shortlist of highly interesting related titles. E.g.
Logos might link to Arche-Fact, and Arche-Fact might link to
Origins.


SOURCES

Coppedge, Nathan. Systems Theory. Charleston: CIP, 2016.


     
BACK TO SYSTEMS