Michael Allan,[C] 2014-2015, 2016-. Morals arising from the limits of existential hazard. Unfinished draft. (HTML, source) [HT]
This is an archival draft outline, unfinished and out of date. For a more recent draft outline, see http://reluk.ca/project/proto-waycast/
combine the overriding waykit fixes with these theory fixes ... - - - - - - - - - overriding theory fixes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -! material end is poorly formulated - "unbroken continuity" is redundant - "hopeful" continuity is weird / | reduce to mere "continuity" // ! then gift is less than "wonderful" / ( it is already less than wonderful as "a potential for hopeful, unbroken continuity" | bring back "endless continuity" | "readjust my means" ( notebook 2017.1.6 = infer the moral matter (M) as in previous versions - unqualified, unfudged - M then becomes: ' In continual fear of being unequal to reason’s demands, of breaking faith with the past, and of living in ultimate futility, I readjust my means to — so reaffirm my devotion to — securing / | the endless continuity of rational being // ! 'being' is overloaded with unwanted associations | the endless continuity of rational nature - "rational nature" for consistency with Kan85 / ! demands article 'a', suggests nature as a trait, e.g. "a dubious nature" // hardly, not enough to throw away its precise meaning and perfect rhythm / | an eternity of rational nature / - let its unbroken continuity be implied / - continuity (as opposed to broken-record cycles) is crucial / - but 'rational' already implies it / - and the implication can be spelled out in the supporting text // ! anticlimax + awkward rhythm / | an unbroken eternity of rational nature // ! awkward rhythm in the existential refuge of great distances - meantime assuring the reader that I'll soon deal with the (seemingly fatal) problem of vacuum decay = introduce the problem of vacuum decay ( in "fear", as per M - at end of material § = rescue the theory - so to "readjust my means" ( so to "rescue the Earth from this flood", as per headquote - at start of formal § - there introducing the postulate of the practical horizon (T) / - though it's a practical application of the theory, / it may nevertheless return to the same theory as a postulate // rather it's a theoretical element of ethics, so able to contest those of physics ! vacuum decay by artifice ( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352274/relative-mean-times-to-electroweak-vacuum-events-natural-artificial-and-remedi -? need I address this question of theory - viz. is it within the practical horizon? | yes, because its referents are potentially within the practical horizon - the third referent (refuge) is not - I feel obliged to also ask about the third when I ask about the second (device) - because often the best way to answer such questions is by trial and error -? how address it | waysteps of research = wayscript the answering of it - especially in regard to its referents - and estimates of their probability ? is probable metastability really a consensus in physics - I'm now being told (rightly or wrongly) that it's too speculative to be taken seriously ( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352274/relative-mean-times-to-electroweak-vacuum-events-natural-artificial-and-remedi = consider elevating to this question instead ( notebook 2017.8.19 - re-forming T to define the meaning of 'hazard' in terms of the practical horizon - anything beyond not being a hazard at all - a hazard to humanity - or any rational species - can exist no farther than the practical horizon of the species - beyond that horizon it is a mere harmless object of abstract speculation - beyond the purview of practical reason - the harm would be to take it otherwise - to take *it* with the everyday givens of science and technology - to 'hear the whole we fear told tranquil, like another tale' - thus allowing recovery of the simpler, bolder, less qualified statement of postulate S ( omitting the qualification of the 'practical horizon' - re-forming S ( S being the practical horizon - giving it a non-arbitrary definition - definition of horizon redrawn on: - empirical grounds - proven practical reach - evidence of past planning success - of past ability to grapple and deal with future hazard - mechansism of extension ( notebook 2017.12.19 - two legs ( from entrepreneurial advice I once read somewhere ( to the effect, "Plan big, execute small" ( not uncommon, often paraphrased, likely be hard to trace to a source * plan big - without bound - no horizon here * execute small - within the *formal* practical horizon - operate by measuring the *actual* practical horizon ( to which the formal is extended, or otherwise adjusted - as the period between plan formation and successful execution / | faith / = justify a belief in the possibility of endless continuity / ( here if not elsewhere / - believing in this possibility despite any contradictory hazard / such as vacuum decay that may lie beyond the practical horizon / - rationale / - it was only by willing this belief that I could stop worrying / about those hazards / - else that "covenant" is less than wonderful / - this seems akin to traditional faith / = add to theory / - both *belief* (or faith) and the *doubt* that it counters / - though hope would be enough to counter the fear in M, / it takes something more to counter a doubt that, propelled by warrant / of physics, intrudes from beyond the practical horizon / ? add where / | M / | T / ? then where does the practical horizon bear on the theory = formally embed this theory description in the practice ( want *hands on* the theory simultaneous with practice - restructuring the text into waynodes or equivalent, like the plans - granting in a natural manner access to controls for switching among relation types - allowing user entrance (the priority *start* function) from any of the relation types - indicating type-switching opportunities wherever a relation of the current type intersects with that of another type ( rather than by a general type-switching control - the two seem to be made for each other - the practice of waymaking is based on outlines - the theory is unlikely to be much more than an outline for a long time [ plans - relation type: practical ( means-end, as already coded [ theory - relation type: cognitive|logical ( premise-conclusion as opposed to means-end - the actors|agents are theoreticians - or anyone else with a theoretical stance ( as opposed to practitioners -? how do the two types of relation fit together | in one instance (this particular theory) forms as conclusions are identical to forms as means - so the two meet here -? what general kind of "fit" is this an instance of - generally an interrelation between nodes of different types, that's all [ myth / - relation type: narrative sequence / - starting with a naive working example or prototype / - outlined by salvaging the subjective parts of the theory and expanding on them / ( including story fragments, and "confessional frame" in archive ._/ - relation type: cognitive|affective - - - - - - - - - overriding theory fixes (end) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... so entwined, theory and practice will support each other as they grow
- - - - - - - - -
- I describe how we appear to be living in a morally potent cosmos
- one in which physics joins with reason and emotion|feeling to give rise to morals
- the physical universe is asymmetric in confining its existential dangers to smaller volumes
of space-time than it confines its life forms
- the range of humanity, for instance, is more extensible than any hazard to human existence
- taking this as a first postulate
- I infer the feasibility of reaching a stable end other than extinction
- adding that I place a supreme value on practical reason (second postulate)
- I infer a *moral matter* that comprises fear and devotion in lockstep with the demands of reason
- analyzing this matter on historical lines
- I abstract two forms that are essential to it:
- a pre-modern one of *goal orientation|direction*
- and a modern one of *promoting freedom*
- finally
- I show how these same two forms that shape the internal, moral matter are likewise fit to shape
the external, structural means to the future, stable end
- this is my thesis
- extending from the postulates to the end, matter, form, and means
of a nascent ethic
- - - - - - - - -
- I raise several adjunct hypotheses on the utility of the derived forms for moral judgement
- societal structuring
- and the morality of objects
- then conclude with suggestions on testing them
= reformulate according to modified physical postulates
- maybe patterning after Fines's excellent intro:
( first two paragraphs: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/question-of-realism.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0001.002
in this paper
- - - - - - - - -
- I describe how we appear to be living in a morally potent cosmos
- one in which physics joins with reason and emotion|feeling to give rise to morals
- the physical universe is asymmetric in confining its existential dangers to smaller volumes
of space-time than it confines its life forms
- the range of humanity, for instance, is more extensible than any hazard to human existence
- taking this as a first postulate
- I infer the feasibility of reaching a stable end other than extinction
- adding that I place a supreme value on practical reason (second postulate)
- I infer a *moral matter* that comprises fear and devotion in lockstep with the demands of reason
- analyzing this matter on historical lines
- I abstract two forms that are essential to it:
- a pre-modern one of *goal orientation|direction*
- and a modern one of *promoting freedom*
- finally
- I show how these same two forms that shape the internal, moral matter are likewise fit to shape
the external, structural means to the future, stable end
- this is my thesis
- extending from the postulates to the end, matter, form, and means
of a nascent ethic
- - - - - - - - -
[ summary of engagements with alternative theses
- restricted to theses on existential bases
- engagements are labeled 'alternative' in text
= introduce the two forms
- their derivation occupies the main sections of the paper [below] - the remainder of this preliminary section anticipates the argument by framing [\the space of] the normative ethic that I expect these forms to support - to help in|with the framing - I introduce working definitions and|plus four adjunct hypotheses - (and for these | first) I abbreviate the forms as:
- next I introduce three pairs of formal inflections
- each pair is a re-expression of the moral forms in a broader ethical context
- the first are imperatives (commands or urgings)
- which puts them in the familiar context of duty
- or responsibility:
- the next pair are rights
- these are not specifically human rights
- but rather the rights (moral entitlements) of all things:
- the final pair of inflections are virtues
- which have the same definition as the bare, uninflected forms G and F:
- underlying these\the inflections and relating them [back] to the forms is\there's an equivalence of four judicial properties - in the moral algebra: Φ = obeying(Φi) = exercising(Φr) = manifesting(Φv) - where Φ is G or F - each of the|these four properties is equivalent - to have *one* [property] - either a form - obeying an imperative - exercising a right - or manifesting a virtue - is to have *all* [four] [of them]
- the two forms - with (as always) their implied equivalents - figure in two judicial rules that together define right and wrong - and serve to guide moral judgement - the two rules are:
- here 'countering' means hindering the form's effectiveness - eliminating or reducing its effective quality or quantity - in application these rules assign each judgement to one of three cases: - right, wrong or neither - (1) - whatever has forms G *and* F - and is not itself wrong - one judges to be right - equivalently - whatever obeys imperatives Gi and Fi - or manifests virtues Gv and Fv - so on - for any equivalent combination - and is not itself wrong - one judges to be right - (2) - whatever counters a form G *or* F that is not itself wrong - one judges to be wrong - equivalently - whatever counters the exercise of a right Gr or Fr (or the obeying of an imperative Gi or Fi, and so on) that is not itself wrong - one judges to be wrong - moral right (1) involves the possession of *both* forms - while wrong (2) involves the countering of *either* - (3) - whatever *neither* possesses both *nor* counters any - one judges to be neither right nor wrong - also - whatever lacks both forms and counters one form - but counters no form that is not itself wrong - one judges (again) to be neither right nor wrong = here is space for other norms - perhaps including: - moral norms further to those defined here - law and legal norms - customary|traditional norms carried (on the current of | along by) everyday practices - my|the first [adjunct] hypothesis is:
- the rules are adequate for my personal use - they're feasible to apply and unproblematic in application - any ruled judgement that initially surprises me [nevertheless] makes sense on subsequent reflection - no judgement brings me into conflict with society
- just as they're adequate for me - the same rules are adequate for most others in contemporary society
- the demand for goal orientation is deep and extensive - it will eagerly vacuum up supply - the supply needn't be pressured nor pushed - only made available - any competent tools or affordances [of goal orientation] will be readily taken up [ another formal uptake hypothesis - the combined forms of G and F are sufficient and thereby prudent means to any final end that is worth attaining - in accord with any workable|viable theory of value - the combination has therefore tremendous utility and potential demand
- the forms that are basic to morals|morality are also useful guides for the design of structures that are basic to society - here they have general utility in reforming society as the means to the moral end - preliminary to any test of these hypotheses - I maintain one thesis - that the basic forms/means G and F are well derived from their postulates - the next three sections introduce this thesis and support it with arguments that extend from the postulates through [the] end, matter, form, and means - a concluding section returns briefly to the hypotheses with a suggestion on how to begin testing them
I hear robins a great way off, and wagons a great way off, and rivers a great way off, and all appear to be hurrying somewhere undisclosed to me. Remoteness is the founder of sweetness; could we see all we hope, or hear the whole we fear told tranquil, like another tale, there would be madness near.
= subjective cast of argument - the moral matter has emotional components - important - inferred by introspection ( 'feeling' and 'emotion' I use not as distinct terms of art, but in their everyday senses = note generally - for this reason - I give the argument in this section a subjective cast - from the postulates (T, S, R) to the conclusion (M) - the|my first two postulates are:
- I believe that civilization is more extensible in range than any hazard on the practical horizon that might destroy it ( till I define "existence" in terms of "rational being", I speak of ciivilization ( in definition, "civilization" starts with "history" (contra prehistory) and invention of writing - this allows me to take an unconventional approach to the problem of existential risk - rather than attempt to reach a conclusion from the numberless hazards that threaten existence within the practical horizon - the numberless ways of going extinct in the near future - I look instead at the ways of eliminating those hazards once and for all - they're relatively few (exactly two) which makes it easier to draw inferences = summarize structure of argument to that point ( viz. point of first inference [ survey of hazards = read ( https://www.scribd.com/document/325226384/The-map-of-natural-global-catastrophic-risks = tabulate - as up front summary ( for each hazard: = clarify distinction of columns 'bounds' and 'horizon' - must not confuse reader * bounds * risk in horizon ( all known hazards are stochastic events, none occuring at a definite time - "risk" means probability of extinction - cumulative out to the estimated maximum extent of the practical horizon (T) - on the assumption of no new countermeasures (unmitigated) in future; only the continuation of any present ones - for unistellar hazards: - estimate a single combined probability for this class of hazard ( so a merged cell in the table - reason is to make the best use of published estimates = calculate from average of published estimates - ≤ 0.5 from 2003 through 2099 ' I think the odds are no better than fifty-fifty that our present civilisation on Earth will survive to the end of the present century. - Martin Rees, 2003. Our final hour: a scientist's warning: How terror, error, and environmental disaster threaten humankind's future in this century - on Earth and beyond. Basic Books, New York. p. 8. = find more predictions - one of Bostrom's papers reviews these, I think - scanning my cited titles, including rejected ones ? better units - might better be expressed in time units (expected time to wait) ( rather than as a probability - reasons - easier to compare with practical horizon (likewise time units) - easier for folks to understand - less irksome than a niggling probability * significance - defined as the relative contribution to the total probability *sum* ( unlike probability itself, the sume may exceed 1 - calculated as a fraction - a hazard of probability 0.1 within a total probability 0.5 would therefore have a significance of 0.1/0.5 = 0.2 - its main purpose is to place the practical horizo - horizon - depicted as a horizontal border in the table - separates hazards that are within the horizon (above border) from those beyond (below) - its purpose is to isolate hazards that lie beyond it - allowing them to be dismissed - placed tentatively by eyeballing the values in the significance column - hazards (or classes of hazard) that I judge to be insignificant are below the horizon - scope - narrow purpose ( needs to be stated at outset - not to wallow in these, only to (pick out | find) the hazards of widest range - and arrive at a preliminary estimate of their overall confinement - known hazards / - including counterfactual hazards that are understood well enough to be taken seriously // no counterfactual hazards (of wide range) are yet anticipated - assuming our current form of life - human biology, planetary habitat, so forth - which is plausibly the most vulnerable that we'll ever have - unistellar range ( one star system / * artificial intelligence // covered by omnicide * bollide impact - e.g. asteroid or comet * climate change * geological engineering - e.g. intended to mitigate effects of climate change - unforseen catastrophic effects * heliosphere descreening ' compression of the heliosphere to the radius of [a planet]’s orbit ( [Mel11p16], but might find a better quote there * stellar death - effects local to system of dying star ( see also supernova below * stellar flare - "solar flare" in the Sun system ( [Mel11] * supervolcanic eruption - wide range ( interstellar [ blazar ' Active galactic nuclei (called Blazars when we look “down the barrel” of the jet of emitted radiation) - the most powerful are called quasars ( [Mel11] * dismissed - insignificant at the universe's present age - too distant to pose a danger ' Haggard et al. (2010) conducted a study of the fraction of X-ray emitting AGN; about 1 in 600 are active, but most of those are much less powerful than quasars, and have insufficient emission (typically about as much as a supernova, but emitted about 8 kpc away near the dynamical centre of our Galaxy [viz. if the AGN were our own]. Quasars are extremely rare, so much that it is improbable that our Galaxy had a quasar phase any time since the Earth formed. We shall not consider a possible outburst within our own galaxy, though there may possibly have been a significant outburst in the past. ( [Mel11] [ coincidental local extinctions - coincidence of independent, local extinctions across total extent of existence - bounds are strictly stochastic - refuge requirement - ongoing expansion - to aymptotically approach confinement of this hazard [ gamma ray burst ' GRBs are sudden, intense fashes of γ-rays which, for a few blinding seconds, light up an otherwise fairly faint γ-ray sky. ( [Geh09p6] ' Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the most fascinating phenomena in the Universe. They are bright flashes of radiation with spectral energy distributions peaking in the γ-ray band. They have durations measured in seconds and [are] the most luminous events known. All evidence points to a gravitational power source associated with the cataclysmic formation of a relativistic star or to a precursor stage whose inevitable end point is a stellar mass black hole. ( [Geh09p2] - collimation - collimated into beams, or jets, rather than being radiative like supernovae ' channeled into (probably two) relatively narrow beams, ( [Mel11] ' The appearance of achromatic breaks in the development of GRB afterglows has been interpreted as indicating that they are jet flows beamed towards us. Collimation factors of [formula] (corresponding to half opening angles of [formula] degrees) have been derived from such steepening ( [Geh09p9] ' While it seems probable that we are using the correct ingredients of special relativity and a collimated outflow, it is equally true that no detailed model yet commands majority of support. ( [Geh09p49] ' two main categories of GRBs: long-soft GRB (LSGRB) with a lower spectral energy peak, longer duration, and higher total energy, and short-hard GRB (SHGRB) with opposite mean properties ( [Mel11p22] - LSGRB ' a mean interval of 110 b^-1 Myr for such events. The big uncertainty in this estimate is b. ( [Mel11p23] ' values around b ∼ 0.1 are reasonable for our Galaxy ( [Mel11p24] - a rate of one per ∼ 1.1 billion years * bounds ' significant damage in the form of radiation sufficient to trigger extinction-level ozone depletion could come from a distance of several kpc. ( [Mel11] ' the “lethal” distance for a [LSGRB] photon event is about 2 kpc (roughly 1/10 of the diameter of the Galaxy). ( [Mel11p23] - SHGRB ' Short-hard GRBs (SHGRB) which have burst durations usually 2s or less and emit more “hard” photons, that is higher energy ones, probably result from the merger of black holes and/or neutron stars. SHGRB do not have a strong bias that would affect the rate in our galaxy [same rate here as elsewhere], but they display some preference for older stellar populations. ( [Mel11p22] ' the rate of “lethal” level events from SHGRBs is something like one per 300b^-1 million years, where b is of order unity ( [Mel11p23] * bounds ' we put the “lethal” distance (again, arbitrarily set at ∼30% global average ozone depletion) at about 200 pc. ( [Mel11p23] [ heat death + bounds unlimited * risk in horizon - zero, too remote in future = cite authorities [ omnicide - definition - coincidence of mass destructive forces - whether intended (suicide) or not (war) = illustrate with extinction scenario ( otherwise it'll be unclear - a war between two alliances - mutually comprehesive of all populated systems ( for simplicity of illustration - key: a single-launch weapon that is near comprehensive in destructive force - one launch can destroy all populations in the enemy alliance across all star systems - bounds are time based - assumes no quantum superluminal signaling, q.v. - weapon delivery requires extent-proportional time - for the weapon to produce its total effect ( e.g. if existence extends across 100 ly, then delivery takes at least 100 years - metaphor - existence is a moving target that moves by multiplication - for the most part unpredictably - full knowledge of these movements arrives only after a long (and growing) delay - it's difficult to "take out" such a target - refuge requirement - minimum rate of ongoing expansion - sufficient to "outrun" a delivery - potential alternatives for addressing the hazard of omnicide - increasing spans of time and distance may undermine, in some way, the conditions of exposure to omnicide ( e.g. exposure through the formation of mutually belligerent alliances - any general increase in reason, if that can be expected, might imply an irenic tendency ( see notebook:2021-8-7b - evidence that reason might increase is the fact of varying degrees of rational capacity (among individuals in a population, among species) and the gradual increase of rational capacity in the hominid/hominin line - potential evidence that reason tends to peace is the peaceful inclination of modern democracies, which are the societies most supportive of reason - supportive of form F, unlike autocracies - not opposed to G, as some autocracies are (e.g. China’s) [ pandemic - source - mass transport between star systems - whether deliberate or by chance (e.g. interception of stray probe) - failure of precautions, e.g. sterilization or isolation - migration between systems - e.g. slow, haphazard migration through an overlap of interstellar Oort clouds ( ref - Carl Sagan, 1994. *Pale blue dot: a vision of the human future in space.* Random House, New York. ( referent/1994, Sagan. Pale blue dot.* * bounds - two stars - except in case of: (q.v.) - coincidental local extinctions - omnicide [ supernova - types - la, lb/c, llbc, llP ( [Mel11p19] - not only giant stars can explode in supernovae - but also smaller, binary systems - works by "extinction-level ozone depletion from direct radiative effects on the one hand, and compression of the heliosphere to the radius of [a planet]’s orbit on the other" ( note - the latter mode of effect is an instance of what's generally known as *heliosphere descreening* * bounds - the "lethal distance" is ∼10 pc ( [Mel11p16p18]
[ vacuum decay - transition of electroweak vacuum from metastable to stable + bounds unlimited - nature of hazard - Esp18 - Lyk14 ' this groundbreaking discovery [Higgs boson] also has fundamental cosmological consequences by allowing conclusions regarding the fate of the Universe via the analysis of the vacuum stability. ( [Bed15p1] ' Whether the Universe is in a true vacuum or a false vacuum can be calculated from the masses of the Higgs boson and the top quark. For such a calculation, one must assume that no physics beyond the standard model, such as new particles or forces, appear up to an extremely high energy scale — the Planck scale. ( [Kus15p1] ' A more precise knowledge of the Higgs boson mass, the top-quark mass, the strong coupling constant, and other parameters will be needed to shed light on the issue. ( [Kus15p2] - Raj18 pp. 1-4 * evidence ' With the current precision of the measurements of Mh and Mt (see experimental ellipses) and of the theoretical calculation of the bounds for stability, one concludes that the EW vacuum is most likely metastable ( [Esp15p3] ' the familiar notion that our vacuum is metastable is likely to be premature. ( [Bed15p5] ' The authors [Bed15] conclude that if the standard model is correct, the measured values of certain quantities, such as the mass of the Higgs boson, imply the Universe is metastable. However, they also show that stability might be more likely than previous studies indicated. ( [Kus15p1] ' best theoretical fit... points to a metastable Universe. ( [Kus15p2] * risk in horizon - stochastic - physical - risk is relatively small in the near term - danger being 'close' - estimates metastable lifetime 10^100 years, but without explaining ( Lyk14 ' the EW vacuum lifetime ... is extremely long, exceeding by a huge factor the age of the Universe. ( Esp15p3 - social - risk is relatively large in the near term - danger being relatively 'near' - undermines hope - here the remedy must be theoretical in form - matching ethics against physics + this is introduced as postulate T - citations - Bed15. A.V. Bednyakov, B.A. Kniehl, A.F. Pikelner and O.L. Veretin, 2015. Stability of the electroweak vacuum: gauge independence and advanced precision. Physical Review Letters. 115.201802. ( http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.201802 ( https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.201802 (1) (2) conclusion - Esp15. José R. Espinosa, 2015. Implications of the top (and Higgs) mass for vacuum stability. 8th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics, TOP2015. ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01222v1.pdf - Esp18. J. R. Espinosa, 2018. Cosmological implications of Higgs near-criticality. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A. 376: 20170118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0118 - Kus15. Alexander Kusenko, 2015. Viewpoint: are we on the brink of the Higgs abyss? Physics. 8.108. ( https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/108 ( https://physics.aps.org/articles/pdf/10.1103/Physics.8.108 - interpreting Bed15 - Lyk14. Joseph D. Lykken, 2014. The Higgs Boson and the Fate of the Universe. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyHp90wAiXI - deputy director of Fermilab in Chicago - Raj18. Arttu Rajantie, 2018. Higgs cosmology. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A. 376: 20170128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0128 / = read / - S. Alekhina, A. Djouadib, and S. Mochd, 2012. The top quark and Higgs boson masses / and the stability of the electroweak vacuum. / ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312008611 / - undecided / - Isabella Masina, 2013. Higgs boson and top quark masses as tests / of electroweak vacuum stability. Phys. Rev. D 87. / ' stability is at present allowed [abstract] / ( no access http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.053001 / - various 2016 / ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.01157 / ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00853 / ( http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.045005 / ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04777 / ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP10%282016%29004 / ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07808 / ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08356 / ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06963 / - and there are many others // till the pipeline clears / [ unknown hazard of wide range / - raises special requirement to adjust rate of expansion according to on-going assessment / of hazards new and old // need not address a phantom = note review - Owen Cotton-Barratt, Sebastian Farquhar, John Halstead, Stefan Schubert and Andrew Snyder-Beattie, 2016. *Global catastrophic risks.* ( referent/2016, Cotton-Barratt ++. Global catastrophic risks. ( http://globalprioritiesproject.org/2016/04/global-catastrophic-risks-2016/ ( http://globalprioritiesproject.org/2016/05/errata-to-global-catastrophic-risks-2016/ [ investigation of problematic factors * quantum superluminal signaling - possibility of superluminal signaling by quantum mechanics - well introduced by Tim Maudlin: ' During the past century our physical picture of the world... The ultimate outcome of the revolutions is now but dimly seen, at best. [Mau11p1] - Bell's contribution raises the possibility, since confirmed empirically: ' The problem that will concern us here... the particles communicate faster than light. ...The two pillars of modern physics seem to contradict one another. | The predicted correlations have been experimentally confirmed. ...even in conditions where the communication between the particles would require superluminal velocities. [p2] ' In some way our basic picture of space, time, and physical reality must change. [p4] = quickly search Berkovitz for quotable reviews ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/#Rel = search Google scholar - just 1995-2009 (2010- already searched) - terms: review (superluminal | faster light) quantum? = ask on stack exchange = dismiss - based on expert consensus ' ... so far as we know, so far as our theories inform us about what can be controlled and observed, faster-than-light telegraphs cannot be built. Or, as it is often said, there is no Bell telephone. ( [Mau11] ' It is commonly agreed that in quantum phenomena, superluminal signaling is impossible in practice. ( [Ber16-a] [ formal choice - exactly two ways to eliminate the risk of extinction - as a formal choice * x↑. extend existence beyond the widest ranging of existential hazards * x↓. go extinct - to cover all ways (forward | of existence) - there is just one more choice * x↕. accept the risk of extinction = read where Kant juxtaposed similar alternatives ( refs from p. 512, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/stable/41703079?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ( Conflict of the Faculties 7:81 (cf. 8:308), 7:82 (cf. 8:380) ( Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose 8:18 ( On the Common Saying: 'This may be true in theory, but it does not apply in practice' 8:307-9
[ material question - what does this choice mean? ( what have I formalized here? - already I've defined "far", or "a great way off" ( which is easy in being largely formal itself - but what does existence mean? - how does one extend it? - and conversely, what does extinction mean? - my answers will depend on a subjective recasting of the question - outline MQ summarizes the|my argument to the end of this section - it elaborates the material question Q into branches (Q1 to Q4) - recasts (Q′, Q2′) and the inferred answers (A, B)
= pivot on inapplicability of economic argument(s) of discount at *distance* ( texts - Jason Gaverick Matheny, 2007. *Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction.* Risk Analysis, 27.5. pp. 1335–1344. ( referent/2007, Matheny. Reducing the risk of human extinction.* ( http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/pmpmta/Mahoney_extinction.pdf - reviews the discounting argument and counter-arguments (p.1338-) - critiques the argument - not engaging, merely pivoting onto my experience (near and present) which contradicts that "distance" - in answer to material question Q - they (as one might think) ( objective argument - the choice has little meaning - the outcomes are discounted by their distance in the future - I ( subjective argument - the choice itself is not distant - I base my argument not on anticipation of a future effect of that choice - but on the present effect of it - that effect does not appear to be discounted by the distance of the objects to which the choice refers - nor in any other way diminished - my knowledge of this comes direct from the exceptional strength of emotion involved in the choice = mention something of how I explain that emotion ( viz. in terms of practical reason and final end = connect to what follows ( to recounting my original experience of the choice
[ recount of original experience of choice = my prior clearing away ( in note or inline - unable to find a worthwhile goal for my life - I gave up - letting things merely be - living day to day - sense of relief then - of a weight lifting from me - of freedom - ordinary things looked somehow different too - less familiar - more beautiful and interesting - in this state - within a span of days or hours (I forget) - I conceived of x↑ as a feasible goal ( [CME] - I siezed upon|on it immediately = feeling of gratitude ( referenced in conclusion - I didn't think of it as a choice - as though one might choose differently ( note - of course, the formal freedom of a choice would be ultimately illusory in this case - [it seems] the cosmos\universe is a realm\space of maximal freedom - unbounded except on this one condition - a true case of "forced to be free" = pace whoever said that - or "use it or lose it" - but I wasn't thinking this at the time - rather the implications of my *unquestioned choice* began to unfold in my head|mind as a story - elaborately framed - like the *One Thousand and One Nights* - so that my understanding of it crystallized|emerged unexpectedly in aesthetic form - eventually I learned that I couldn't feasibly carry that to completion - that my skills are better suited to other fields, such as engineering ( busy developing skills for years, till again steered toward x↑ in ?fall 2001, High Park Blvd. - but always the approach I took was hands-on, creative, and in this sense a practical one [ method of answering = introduce theoretic approach - now I take the unaccustomed approach of theory - I want to understand the matter in explanatory, conceptual terms - what's behind [my siezing upon] this unquestioned choice? - my theoretical tools won't always be sharp enough to get me to the answer - so sometimes I fall back (onto | on the) practical ones - below I [must] begin (as in the first instance) by falling back on the aesthetic ones = introduce ethical approach - the (aesthetic turn | path) of my argument is unusual - it may help therefore to give it (*some* | at least some) conventional bearing from the outset - I attempt|do this [now] by reference to the three [\main] schools of ethical thought - necessarily this is a [\very] brief and jejune|naive survey ( note - I came late to ethics - my knowledge of the field isn't broad enough to frame the|my argument in comparative or meta-ethic terms i. virtue ethics - but (naively) this seems unpromising - elsewhere I express the moral *forms* in terms of virtue - but the matter behind my unquestioned choice doesn't feel like a virtue ( note - see formal inflection - I can hardly imagine anyone choosing otherwise - therefore whatever motivated my choice is probably too common to call a virtue ii. deontological ethics - but again, this seems unpromising - again, I *do* express the moral forms in imperative terms - but the matter behind my unquestioned choice doesn't feel like obedience to any duty, law or command - I can hardly imagine a willing *dis*obedience iii. consequentialism - it *does* seem a consequential choice - and it always did - whether I view it subjectively - attuned to how it affects *me* - or objectively - calculating how it affects people at large - it seems to carry|entail the heaviest of consequences - this is my initial warrant to call it a matter of morals ( to which I'll implicitly add the warrant of duck typing - continuing jejunely on this conventional path - I name the good in consequence of which I made the choice - the good at risk:
= R is a postulate = acknowledge strangeness and promise to explain below = subjective focus - I proceed with a focus on the subject - on myself and my experience of valuing ( aspects of R that are, of course, undefined by philosophy - near the end, I reach a partial conclusion to the material part of the argument - a first "glimpse" of M
= possibility of completion from there - of a full conclusion - stated very briefly = possibility of shortcut instead ( as the formula of M∼ is purely objective - I could reach a conclusion more quickly if I wanted a mainly objective one ( quickly because these things are already well enough defined by philosophy - then I need only focus on the object of practical reason and its elevation above all = summarizing how - in a phrase, or sentence at most - so a matter of will
= indication of problem - based on my own experience - it simply isn't *like* that * on one hand - it's too much - somehow daunting, foreboding - - even groteseque - - to attach something so huge to me - something infinite * on the other - it's not enough - there's more to it than a mere testament of will - something more meaningful to uncover - couched in that formal phase "Above all I intend" = re-introduce headquote - quoting one more line
I hear robins a great way off, and wagons a great way off, and rivers a great way off, and all appear to be hurrying somewhere undisclosed to me. Remoteness is the founder of sweetness; could we see all we hope, or hear the whole we fear told tranquil, like another tale, there would be madness near. Each of us gives or takes heaven in corporeal person, for each of us has the skill of life. …
= headquote ( repeated here - I chose it because she's talking about the same thing - I know that because I recognize in her words my own, familiar experience - I can identify with what she's written = state problem - I don't identify with M′will - though I can't dispute it = assert its truth - it follows from S and R - but it's only a half truth = access to problem - for reader to consider ' I'm going to die before that end is reached - stolid reiteration - one cannot just *formally* will something at such a great distance and leave it at that - not like willing one's estate - a simple matter of talking to the lawyer and executor - signing the document - and there it's done - now I can die and everything's okay = the supremacy of practical reason alone does not suffice - no matter how high the pedestal it sits on - at least not practical reason as we commonly define it = interrelation of reason and emotion|feeling - the fact of a connection between reason and emotion (in my experience) is reflected in R - here - for sake of the argument - emotion is sequestered|couched|disguised in the form of a valuation / - might quote de Sousa on that / ' A radically different perspective, broadly speaking aesthetic, / starts from the fact that if there were no emotions, nothing would matter. / Considered in that light, the connection between emotions and values / is intrinsic and fundamental. [Sou08p6] // does not help ' A scholar’s heart is a dark well, whence deeply buried emotions bubble up in the guise of arguments. [Sou08p12] - Natalie Clifford Barney as quoted in Ronnie de Sousa, 2008. Interview. Praxis, Vol. 1, No. 1. ( http://praxisjp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/INTERVIEW-WITH-RONNIE-DE-SOUSA.pdf = instead cite original = difficulty of scoping practical reason - often my experience of it seems better described by Dickinson's "skill of life" than by Kant's "practical reason" - below I'll commit to ad hoc definitions of practical reason - but only to to partial ones - through the entanglement of practical reason and emotion in my experience - I can't say|see exactly where one begins and the other leaves off
= introduce aesthetic approach - this is where I must fall back on the aesthetic approach - I define the 'aesthetic' broadly as concerned with expressions or appreciations of art - but I've come to adopt|take a pragmatic\practical view of art (from Habermas) which bears on the way I now make use of it ( [PVA] - I take its truth warrant to be sincerity - among other aesthetic criteria - such as efficacy - I include one|that of truthful, subjective disclosure - here I depend on that criterion in particular - as I employ rough, unpolished scraps of imagery|image and text introspectively - and thereby reach an understanding of the matter in terms of fear and devotion
- I first recall|describe two images - one each of the past and future - that together have the function (for me) of myth - though I haven't the art to express it as such - in proper, aesthetic form - these images tell the story of where I come from and where I'm going - the past image is that of a woman - it occurs to me only in fragments - which I present here in the left column of table PF.
Past | Future | |
---|---|---|
Cast | Woman | Mother and child |
Time | Day | Night |
Resolution | Poor. Most of the details are obscure, defying exploration. | Good. I can explore the image, discovering new details. |
Action | Burdened somehow, she stumbles and struggles to regain her balance. | Kneeling close to the child, she points into the sky. |
Scene | Wind, water, or some other elemental force hinders her progress. | The night is calm and quiet. I can hear their voices at a distance. |
Affect | Helpless, as though carried on her shoulders, I feel the vertigo of a future that might or might not be. | A sense of assurance, of opportunity, of boundless wonder. |
Stability | I can never hold this image in my mind. Always it’s interrupted at the crisis and never resolves. | The image is stable. The pair rest in contemplation of the night sky. I can look on indefinitely. |
Conception | Spontaneous, soon after conceiving the material end.[CME] | Constructed while drafting the first version of this paper.[HT, R2I] |
- the future image [\unlike the past image] I deliberately constructed in narrative form - here it is: ' A child is looking at the night sky. His mother points, "Do you see that star?" she asks, "That's where people came from. They came here," she says, and pauses to see that he understands. "That was before you were born. Also they went there, and there," she traces lines above to other specks of light, one by one. Then she sweeps her hand across the [whole] starry sky, "This is where we live," she says\concludes, "We shall always live here."
= introduce present image - to gain access to the affective|emotive whole - it helps to introduce a third image to the myth - a short story about|of a little girl: ' Margie was holding tightly to the string of her beautiful new balloon. Suddenly, a gust of wind caught it. The wind carried it into a tree. The balloon hit a branch and burst. Margie cried and cried. = cite - David E. Rumelhart, 1975. *Notes on a schema for stories.* In *Representation and understanding*. Edited by Daniel G. Bobrow and Allan Collins. Academic Press, New York. p. 211. ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=JImLBQAAQBAJ ( quoted by Hofstadter in *Gödel, Escher, Bach*, where I read it ∼ 1983 - this story functions as the "present" image - a gloss on its|the text helps to explain how it works: - the crucial thing to understand is that the balloon was not found merely floating in the air - it was a gift - you see - a wonderful, precious gift - as wonderful as a butterfly that one could hold - Margie was very grateful - she was old enough to feel gratitude - but still limited in her means of expressing it - a sincere, unrestrained enjoyment of the gift was all she could offer|give in return - herein lies the depth of feeling|emotion behind her tears - by losing the tethered balloon so quickly - she not only showed herself unequal to the task of holding it - but was left with a large, unpaid debt of gratitude - she thereby felt unworthy - undeserving - not only of the gift but of the generosity of the gift giver - this is why she cried
- I base the gloss on a childhood memory - my|the feeling at the time - as I recall - was intensified because the gift was given in parting - it was the token of a promised return = note - nothing so lofty as a balloon in my case ( peanut butter cookie, lost in covers at bed time - gift giver was my mother - as happens by the strange logic of dreams - I see Margie as the little girl dressed for travel in an old family snapshot - my mother, ∼1944 ( the name is alike: Margaret, Maggie or (as her father called her) Mugsy - she would recall that particular journey whenever we looked at the snapshot together = journey - wartime - east from Ontario to the coast - to where her father was stationed, if I recall - most of all she remembered the kindness of the soldiers on the train - and their gifts of candy = vantage of soldiers - far from home - mindful of what|all they leave behind - gifting is the conceptual key to interpret the three images as an affective whole - there's a single gift [that is] common to all three - it takes|assumes a different form in each [image] - [being|it is] carried by the past woman as *the future that might or might not be* - held by the present child as *a balloon* - and passed from [\the] future mother to child as *a promise [both] redeemed and reaffirmed* - I look on from the mundane world and identify with the present child - this vantage allows me to subjectively recast the material question - and begin to form an answer ( materialQuestion + Q′. what is this gift that I was given? = answer - two things I was given that are [together] wonderful and precious ( alluding to Margie's balloon ( foreshadowing Kant's famous "two things", which I quote in next § x) a potential for hopeful, unbroken continuity - given by S - to look up and see that|it written in the night sky like a covenant - it strikes me with wonder r) practical reason - given by R - precious beyond all as my paramount|supreme value - the last thing I would ever [\willingly] surrender - the gift comprises the conjunction (x + r) - in short - the hopeful, unbroken continuity of rational being as a feasible, practical end = refer to outline MQ ( answers A to question Q' = correct this to r alone - x is implied because reason implies coherence - without the endless continuity of practical effect ( 'hopeful, unbroken' is now 'endless' in latest theory - practical reason is utimately futile - without that continuity - therefore - it is incoherent - now the gift is mere practical reason - what I value most - I define "rational being" below = explain conjunctive binding - in terms of practical reason itself - to will the realization of a potential - makes [of] it an end, or goal - and to will the realization of *this particular potential* makes it a final end - this accounts for the conjunctive binding as practical reason's need of a final end in order to avoid circularity or endless recursion = anchor by authoritative statement and citation - maybe Kant's Groundwork will suffice - reason (practical or not, I guess) seeks the unconditioned [4:463] ( comment somewhere - on recognizing two final ends * subjective a} "practical reason" b} within me c} a thing given to me, not chosen d} why an end? it's at risk in some sense, as indicated by fear and devotion e} why final? end in itself, supreme value, not a means to any farther, subjective end - though it is a means to the *objective* end, indeed the supreme means * objective a} "hopeful, unbroken continuity of rational being" b} beyond me, in the natural universe c} a thing chosen by me, not given d} why an end? it's at risk (S) e} why final? end in itself, not a means to any farther, objective end - though it is often a means to my *subjective* end - as any application of practical reason needs a final objective end in order to be fully coherent - and many applications would otherwise go without - in the main text - the unqualified "final end" (or "material end") refers to the objective one - while I use "value" (not "end") to refer to the subjective one - the force of this binding might explain my choosing (my willing) of x↑ in the first place - my quickness to sieze upon it - my reluctance to entertain the possibility of doing otherwise - but only in part - it doesn't go [quite] far enough to answer the original, material question ( materialQuestion - branches of Q remain unanswered - it doesn't join neatly with my experience to make a whole understanding [\of it]
- still|but it [does] gives me a theoretical name for the gift - for the conjunction - which I now call the "material end" - with this, I gain|have a first, partial glimpse|understanding of the moral matter: = refer to outline MQ ( answer A "material end"
= define rational being ( from salvage - as being that is facile (?) in practical reason = add to glossary = partly define practical reason - Kant ' in the end there can only be one and the same reason, which must differ merely in its application ( 4:391 - so the practical use|application of reason ' The speculative use of reason, *with regard to nature*, ... the practical use of reason, *with respect to freedom*, ( 4:463 / - Wallace / ' Practical reason is the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, / the question of what one is to do. [Wal14] // - too loose and wordy / - I'd rewrite it as "rational thought about what to do, and how" = others - want to emphasize that I leave the bounds of practical reason unspecified - not yet committing to a comprehensive definition for what's "rational" - maybe it's the same as the "skill of life" that Emily Dickinson wrote about to her cousins - whereby "Each of us gives or takes heaven in corporeal person" - her|that letter continues: [Dic73]
… I am pleased by your sweet acquaintance. It is not recorded of any rose that it failed of its bee, though obtained in specific instances through scarlet experience. The career of flowers differs from ours only in inaudibleness. I feel more reverence as I grow for these mute creatures whose suspense or transport may surpass my own.
- I try to be [as] open minded and - in my own way - as sympathetic as she - just as the skill of life has no definite bounds - I allow [\that] there may be varying endowments|legacies|degrees of practical reason - we seem to be (given | endowed with) more of it than other creatures - and to live in a universe that was tailored for it - this|here again is the gift - it brings me to a second recasting of the material question: ( materialQuestion + Q2′. how do I hold onto this gift? - I've a long experience of trying [at least] [\to hold onto it] - the memory of which I now bring into the argument ( [CME] - I try to hold the material end (the potential that is the gift) by working toward its realization = outline experience - normally I'm absorbed in the everyday routine of that work - but often I encounter problems that interrupt that normal routine - for each problem: 1) fear - slowly ebbing as I bring myself around to confront the problem 2) renewal of effort - initially focused on the problem 3) reabsorption in the routine work = reflect in terms of practical reason - I think the fear might be explained [theoretically] as a consequence of R: - the essence of each problem is a failure of means-end coherence - means-end coherence is a necessary condition of practical reason - expanding on this: - citing authorities = from Kant's Groundwork - since he's my main source = from Wallace - where it's called "instrumental norm" ( [Wal14] = find other authorities - practical reason is my supreme value (R) - the fear in each instance (1) coincides with a problem of means-end incoherence - it's an alarm signal that activates whenever my means (the stuff of my everyday work) no longer appear to cohere with the material end - whenever my hold on the gift is threatened - the fear begins to subside as I (2) confront the problem and *readjust my means* to bring them back into apparent coherence with the material end - so struggling to keep my hold [on it] - when apparent coherence is restored, then (3) - fear is eliminated - and I return to the everyday routine of the work - because of the work's overriding importance to me - and perhaps because of its mythic scope ( bounded only by the extremes of origin and destination - I characterize it emotively as a *devotion* = refer to outline MQ ( answer B to Q2' = reflect in terms of mythic images - my characterization of the fear that attends that devotion comes|arrives in three parts (as though refracted) from the three images of the myth: - from the familiar tears of the present image - a fear of *being unequal to reason’s demands* - from the untold sacrifices of the past - a fear of *breaking faith with the past* - and from the future that might or might not be - a fear of *living in ultimate futility* ( regardless of whether my own efforts contribute, pace notebook 2016.9.13 = refer to outline MQ ( some answers B to Q4 = join and conclude - [so] by these reflections - I arrive at a formula of the moral matter:
- when I reach the end of my life - the past and future will be done insofar|inasfar as I could affect them - all that will remain for the present is to die = answer original material question ( materialQuestion / - recalling how grateful I was to discover that refuge / - now I understand the reason for my quickness to sieze upon it / - it was the same reason that I siezed upon that first gift as child / - the first for which I felt truly grateful / - not only was it a wonderful and precious thing / - but it gave me courage / - I remember / - to endure the wait / - I know how it feels to gain that courage / - and to lose it // salvage for below, notebook 2016.8.18 * Q2 - using definitions of 'fear' above, and 'rational being' farther above - spatio-temporal communication is the sole means and measure of extent - in space - whether continuously by colonization, or abruptly by contact ( e.g. symbolic, signaling - it's my only hope of not becoming trapped in a means-end blind alley ( answer B * Q3 ( answer B * Q4 ( rest of answers B [ engagement with alternative thesis: Bostrom's consequentialism - as instance of choosing x↕ ( the thing Q4 asks about - Nick Bostrom, 2003. *Astronomical waste: the opportunity cost of delayed technological development.* Utilitas 15.3. pp. 308–314. ( http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html ( http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.pdf - consequences - his - accounted cumulatively between now and final extinction in future - a matter of chance, in large part - somewhere (maybe another paper) he claims that the risk of extinction cannot be "eliminated" - so he accepts the risk of extinction + x↕ - mine - register immediately in present - accounted at once as the practical end of choice: endless existence or extinction - all or nothing - no in between - if the end is lost ( the material end, as I call it - then all value is lost - and only *I* can lose it (given S) - strictly a matter of will, of choosing - I have chosen not to lose it + x↑ - and thereby defeated chance on this point - extinction may still occur|happen as an external, objective fact|nature - but I've banished it from within me = introduce table - which characterizes that distinction further [ table - comparing subjective and objective securing of material end + external * establishment - future - escaping the bounds of hazard by extending in space - matter of fact * maintenance|renewal - answered in Q2 - repairing lost communications + internal * establishment - present, immediate - escaping the bounds of hazard by ...? | practical reason | my giving priority to it | my valuation|elevation of it | my asserting|relying on it | rational affect - matter of will * maintenance|renewal - answered in Q2' - I can only banish chance temporarily - witness the "continual fear" in M - but I'm determined to rebanish it when next it reappears = note - comparing to Kantian autonomy by reference to Groundwork - mine seems to differ in being particular, concrete [ answered from my own standpoint - would give same answer to to acceptance of extinction *itself* - viz. to the *choosing* of x↓ = connect somehow with following - childhood mother as outside assurance - memory of that (from current ending) = from salvage above - growing, learning that life (mother's, mine) does not last / - need to connect with something "outside" oneself / - lest one disappear up one's own "arse" / ( as it can seem in the banal routine of existence / ( quote from NFB film on Grierson - self devaluation - in practical logic - - in terms of what I value most - - I have no worth / - or in terms of the "skill of life" / - whereby one "gives or takes heaven in corporeal person" / [Dic73] / - I would embody the opposite / - a kind of [\personal annihilation in a] living death - so connect to headquote of next §
Then the Universe is water; water without end or beginning; without Earth or sky; without space or light; without sound or movement. Then the dark waters lie still and silent and waiting, touching nothing.
What shape shall I take to rescue the Earth from this flood?
- what shape shall I take? = about this question - I never had to ask [myself] this question before - society shaped me - in the sense that I mean here - why I don't know - for I never asked either what lay behind its shaping - what material cause - now a cause comes to me unbidden and I see that it's something new - it behoves me to ask - what shape shall I *now* take? = first clue ( 1 of 2 that I trust and shall rely on - the shape I already have - call it the *occidental modern form* - after my society - symbol F∼ - formulation:
= second clue - the shape I now see in M - call it the *medieval form* - because it looks that way ( though its mode of redemption (q.v.) differs - symbol G∼ = framing a solution - my clues are of two ages - this suggests that my solution (the shape I seek) may pertain to a third age - which in turn suggests a sequence of historical transformations G∼ --→ F∼ --→ ? = formal constraints - I could hardly abandon F∼ - I wish not to abandon G∼ - it seems a reliable clue, revealed in both history and M ∴ I seek a shape that maintains two forms at once - symbolized as G + F G∼ --→ F∼ --→ G + F - constraints: a) G is like G∼ b) F is like F∼ c) each is abstracted from the moral matter M d) each is clearly formulated e) both are mutually compatible - already F∼ is roughly formulated above - next I want G∼ - it's exposed on the surface of M - (which allows | allowing) me to isolate it by simple erasure - erasing all but the iconically medieval parts [\of M] yields: "In continual fear... I... reaffirm my devotion to... unbroken continuity" - abstraction eliminates the material particulars to reveal the form:
[ hylomorphism - this ad hoc technique of analysis I call *hylomorphic* - it isn't Aristotle's hylomorphism ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/ - I take it from Kant ( [HK] - but a better source would be his earlier definition of 'matter' and 'form' ( A266-8/B322-4 - table MMF summarizes my understanding of 'matter' and 'form' as I employ them here
matter | form | |
---|---|---|
ontology | whole | partial |
full | empty hollow |
|
real | imagined realized |
|
concrete | abstract | |
particular | universal | |
genesis | natural | artificial |
involuntary | voluntary | |
given | made | |
placement | static | portable |
internal | externalizeable internalizeable |
|
subjective | subjective objective inter-subjective |
- while the moral matter is concrete, personal and particular - the forms that shape it are abstract, lightweight and therefore generally applicable - while the matter is internal, subjective and involuntary - its forms are portable, externalizeable as objects - thence also internalizeable - so ultimately inter-subjective (social) in application = turn once again to the modern side - with this technique - now I want to abstract a clear formula of F (constraint d) - eraser in hand - I eliminate from M all but the iconically modern this time - which leaves only the disconnected fragments of "reason’s demands", "breaking faith with the past", "readjust my means", "rational being" and "great distances" - with the help of these fragments - I seek the form in M (c) that's respectful of individuality and freedom (b) - I uncover this respectful combination twice, in two separate places: - the "great distances" above me - and "reason’s demands" within me - the\these same two places figure in the famous words of Kant's second Critique: ( [5:161, AA] ' Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and reverence, the more often and more steadily one reflects on them: *the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.* - Kant [\himself] could not make use of the first - because|as the physics that warrants postulate S was unknown in his time|day - I make use of it now [ "great distances" - I'm looking into the "great distances" of M - "the starry heavens above me" - for freedom as it applies to the individual
- I define freedom broadly as the ability|power to do as|what one wants - without hindrance or restriction - which is pretty much the dictionary definition = indication of freedom in M - hazard = hindrance - freedom = non-hindrance - ∴ refuge from hazard = abode of freedom = securing refuge → promoting freedom - potential number of individuals is proportional to spatial and temporal extent - but securing refuge depends on *ongoing spatial expansion* - and assures a *maximum temporal extent* - ∴ securing refuge = ongoing increase in potential number of individuals toward a maximum - but ongoing increase in potential toward a maximum = promoting - simplified: - securing refuge = promoting a maximum number of individuals - but a quantitative relation holds between individuals and freedom - the potential aggregate quantity of personal freedom in the universe being proportional to the number of individuals - ∴ securing refuge = promoting a maximum potential aggregate quantity of personal freedom in the universe - simplified:
- now I'm looking into "reason’s demands" for the same thing - I need Kant's help here - he based his own theory entirely on the internal demands of reason = note - he later postulated the immortality of the soul and the existence of God ( 5:122, 124 - which are (like S) external - but he looked upon each [\of these] as "merely a necessary hypothesis" for which he "could find no better expression" (than "postulate"), - and not part of the|his theory proper ( 5:11n - from the Groundwork: ( [4:448-455] ' Reason must view herself as the authoress of her principles, independently of alien influences, and must consequently, as practical reason, or as the will of a rational being, by herself be viewed as free... From this stem all judgements about actions such that they *ought* to have been *done* even if they *were not done*. = follow Kant part way - enough to make use of a minor postulate:
= a minor postulate - serves merely two, limited purposes [ the way I think of freedom - first it helps me to explain the way I think of freedom - based on Kant's insight - which appeals to me as an intuitive way to understand freedom in the face of nature's determinism - which otherwise makes nonsense of it - freedom is a condition of practical reason - it's a mere *formal* condition (empty, a supposition) but a necessary one all the same - this formality of freedom - which Kant here calls a "view" - and elsewhere a "standpoint" ( [4:458] - I call a "supposition" = note - I don't distinguish two types of freedom - a negative and a positive - as Kant does ( [4:446] - nor a *world of sense*, of appearances - and a separate, intelligible *world of understanding* ( [4:451-455, 458] - my presupposition of freedom in FW might belong to the world of understanding - while the *fact* of it would (if it existed) belong to the world of sense - but I'm not sure about this categorization of worlds and what it implies - Kant takes it from the *Critique of pure reason* - which I haven't read - I simply rely on the conventional, everyday sense of supposition vs. fact - or thought vs. reality - elsewhere - where I speak of mere freedom, unqualified - what I mean [\precisely] is the *presupposition* of freedom in FW [ "reason’s demands" - the second purpose of FW is to reveal form F in the other part of M, in "reason’s demands" - or in "the moral law within me" as Kant puts it - looking back - I can now see F there, too - my supreme valuation of reason (R) implies a promotion of those demands - among which (from FW) is freedom - but the freedom here demanded would not be *excluded* from the universal sum of F - rather it would figure in the maximization that F promotes - as though in response|answer|obedience to R - so here form F is embedded in the rational heart of the matter - further|moreover, while|though I abstracted|extracted F from the refuge of "great distances" above me - that refuge of the material end (in which I first found F embedded) is also a final end - as such, it is a demand of reason = refer to claim of that in previous § - so the two places in which F is embedded are tied together - the one demanding the other - form F is therefore well entangled *throughout* the matter M = resolve G - with help of resolved F - "ultimate end" becoming "endmost goal of the person" - by G′goal - by G′ult - not becoming 'farthest|furthest goal' - 'farthest' is too imprecise - might include farthest in terms of: - difficulty - attention or consideration ' farthest from my mind
- in summary - each of the two erasures of material - yields a different [extrematized] form - the modern yielding a promotion of maximum freedom (F) - and the pre-modern|medieval an orientation to an endmost goal (G) ( [FCG]
Hylomorphic logic |
Moral fundament | Artificial causation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
necessary | form | F | Promoting a maximum, universal sum of personal freedom | means | |
necessary | form | G | Relating the personal to the endmost goal of the person | means | |
↘ ↗ |
↑ matter ↑ |
M | In continual fear of being unequal to reason’s demands, of breaking faith with the past, and of living in ultimate futility, I readjust my means to — so reaffirm my devotion to — securing the hopeful, unbroken continuity of rational being in the existential refuge of great distances |
↓ end |
|
sufficient | matter | R | I value practical reason the most | ||
matter | S | Nature confines all existential hazards on the practical horizon to smaller volumes of space-time, I believe, than it confines civilization itself | |||
matter | T | I estimate that the practical horizon of civilization lies at a temporal distance no greater than the current age of civilization | |||
conditions ↘ conditioned |
conclusions ↑ premises |
causes ↓ effect [EM] |
- maybe it shouldn't surprise me that the forms of|in the matter might now be employed as the means to its end - whether or not it happens in ethics - it often happens in engineering - at the most basic level of engineering - where the means reach their farthest ends and engage with the problems of the world - at the level we may call 'architecture' ( note - despite the confusion of form and function - or for sake of it - often the engineer finds that a|the solution is pre-given by the problem space - then practice meets theory - then the technical design comes not as an invention of the mind but as a discovery of the world - the criterion for the practitioner then - (no less than the theorist) - is that the solution be uncontrived - non-arbitrary - a true disclosure of what's essential to the matter at hand / - in this case the matter of morality - not merely that I like the look of the forms - or they happen to fit the software I've been developing all these years = note - on how they do fit the software - so before I look forward|ahead to employing the moral forms as means - I look back on the path of their discovery with a critical eye - the crucial points in the path are: a) pre-theoretic conception of material end in exceptional|extraordinary G- and F-states of mind b) dependance of postulates S and R on external referents c) extremity of emotion in the introspective synthesis of matter M d) division of forms G and F on lines most prominent in [the] received history e) comprehensive|extensive entanglement of forms G and F with matter M [ a ( pre-theoretic conception of material end in exceptional G- and F-states of mind - recall from the previous section ( materialConception - from a desperate search for a goal - I plunged into an equally desperate freedom - then the idea of the material end came to me - both form and matter came prior to any theoretical conception - they came pressed together within a span of days, or hours - they came in a exceptional psychological state - beyond ordinary bounds - as though I were reaching, climbing outside of myself [ b ( dependance of postulates S and R on external referents - postulates S and R have external referents - on which they depend - things that are outside of me and beyond my control - S depends on the natural|physical structure of the universe - R depends on practical reason - which everyone has [ c ( extremity of emotion in the introspective synthesis of matter M ( as inferred in the previous section - it's not just the sufficiency of postulates S and R together as a condition of M ( bottom left of table MFC - but the extremity of emotion that M takes ( from the superlative in R, or whencever - you might have a greater fear - but likely you can sympathize with mine - and not doubt my sincerity in reporting how deeply (it | the prospect [of it]) affects me = work in - possibly as rhetorical connector between/among points a, c, d ' you dance with who brung you [to the party] = source - and that's no personal whim [ d ( division of forms G and F on lines most prominent in [the] received history ( in this section [ e ( comprehensive entanglement of forms G and F with matter M ( in this section - each, insofar as is possible for a thinned-down abstraction: - is thoroughly entangled with the matter - encompasses, delineates or otherwise comprehends it - gives it integrity and unity as a whole = recount details for F ( from above = specify details for G i) end-to-end - left end, emotion, the personal → right end, securing refuge, endmost goal ii) embedded in rational heart ( also involved in entanglement of F - that refuge of the material end is also a final end - as such, it is a demand of reason = refer to claim of that in previous § - so (once again, as for F) the two places in which G is embedded are tied together - the one demanding the other - form G is therefore well entangled *throughout* the matter M - so forms G and F (are | appear to be) essential to the moral matter - the truth of M depends on my having forms G and F - or, equivalently, on my obeying imperatives Gi and Fi - or exercising rights Gr and Fr - or manifesting virtues Gv and Fv - they are necessary conditions of M (see top left of table MFC) ( note: - as suggested by arrows - [this] conditioning applies to hylomorphic categories (left of table MFC) - not to artificial causation (right) - I claim that each form is necessary to the matter - not each means to the end
[ headquote - early bridge failures - Victorian Britain I think - common enough (I read) that engineers kept score (?) of each others' fallen bridges - read ∼2001 in book from engineering library = source - one way to gain a deeper understanding of things - is to (break them | see them [break, or lying] broken) | see them break) - to do that - I now extend the scope of formal fitness (validity of form) - beyond the hylomorphic analysis of the previous section - to include artificial causation - here I view the forms - not as abstractions after the fact of the moral matter - but as the means to [realize] the moral end (table above) = note - Kant also has matter as 'end',[4:436] though didn't see where he speaks of 'means' ( unsure how I got idea for this type of relation, which is reason for this note - this introduces a criterion of means-end coherence - I expect the combined forms (G, F) - to maximize the probability of securing the unbroken continuity of rational being (M) - by analogy with structural engineering - I call this newly introduced criterion a 'load' or 'stress' - on the composite 'structure' of the forms - I investigate what happens to that load (the end) - when I forcefully deform, reform or otherwise 'break' the structure that supports it (the means) - I'll explain more about the trial method as the trials proceed - meantime - load applied - I start breaking things:
- G′ko [completely] knocks G (out of | from) the structure - F alone remains [ direct argument - G′ko means - no structural support for goal orientation - no expectation that people are trying to achieve anything at all - as per status quo, today - out of sight, out of mind - that seems to decrease the likelihood|probability of the deliberate attainment of ends - not only [the attainment of] ends in general - but *en passant* the specific end of M - ∴ G′ko reduces means-end coherence - the structure is sagging here - not [confidently] carrying the full load [ indirect argument - I look at the sagging structure with alarm - I inspect it more closely - it's not unusual for me to be alarmed - about [the vulnerability of] F∼ [on the slightest provocation] - I'm quick to suspect that it's in [imminent] danger of collapse - balanced against this suspicion - I can usually weigh several centuries of successful institution - that show no evidence of instability - (or none that I'm aware of) - and that'll be enough to temper my alarm - but now there's a difference - signs of strain in the structure - direct my thoughts back to the load it bears - I think [a time span of] a few centuries is irrelevant to a load of this nature - it's not the time *since* F∼'s institution that matters [here] - but the [prior] time to achieve that institution [in the first place] - and, above all, the time [hence] to achieve the material end - differences that come with lengthened prospect: - underlines[?] importance of F∼ - hard won institution of F∼ [we have] may be the last (we ever see | there ever is) - to lose it might leave us no means whatsoever to reach the material end - lifts the likelihood of unlikely events - dangers that formally lay below|beyond|outside - the horizon|bounds [of prudence|probability] - now rise|appear as structural design constraints - lengthening the prospect elevates my usual worry and enlarges its danger - I sketch that danger in outline: 1) a weakening of the institution of F∼ owing to a series of changes - each the deliberate act of a legitimate authority in response to the pressure of events 2) a shock to the now weakened structure|institution - whether internal or external in origin - that imposes great|extreme, unforseen stress 3) failure of the structure - enshrined alone - as freedom for its own sake - F∼ may be [dangerously] unstable in the long term|prospect - one way to counter that instability - is to stiffen the institution of F∼ against the gradual weakening of (1) - so that it's better prepared to handle the sudden stress of (2) - a key problem for the design of the stiffener - is that the [basic|original problem of] weakening is the consequence of step-wise changes - each in itself warranted by a (state of affairs | situation) [that is] unknown to the designer - it would be counterproductive to block any change where the warrant is valid - viz. where the change would be beneficial in the end, all things considered - accordingly the best design I can think of would depend on these four structural elements: a) freedom of speech b) a politics accountable to the public (e.g. a broad electorate) c) a general habit of possessing an endmost goal d) a general habit of relating one's action to one's endmost goal - if you sometimes feel that grandeurized|grand visions of utopian ends - pose the greatest danger to freedom = tie this explicitly to Berlin ( either his essay on "two freedoms", or on the "decline of utopian ideas" ( referent/1978, Berlin. The decline of utopian ideas in the West.* - then think of (c, d) as the structural elements of a general inoculation - against the infectious allure of such visions / = note / - think how much less a workers' paradise on earth / - or a thousand-year Reich / - could take hold in a medieval imagination / - already habituated to contemplating the eternal end of heaven, or hell - either way (as inoculator or stiffener) - the|all four elements would function together as follows: i) each authority (1) is exposed to public critique (a) ii) public criticism is directed at both the validity - of the authority's personal, endmost goal (c) - and the coherence between her F-institutional change and her goal (d) iii) people hear this critique and reflect on it [locally] - each in light of his own endmost goal (c) - "am I satisfied that her change coheres with *my* goal?" iv) where the localization dissatisfies them - people judge the change as harmful - and act in opposition to it (d, a) v) the balance of public opinion tilts either to opposition or acceptance vi) according to the balance of public opinion - the authority either drops her change (abandons it, reverses it) - or carries on with it (b) - this mechanism would tend to block - F-institutional changes that are harmful and ill considered - while passing those that are beneficial - it would stiffen the institution of F∼ against erosion by unnecessary changes that weaken it (1) - keeping it approximately|near|roughly as strong as [current] circumstances will allow - and better able to withstand sudden shocks (2) without failing (3) - already the institution of F∼ emplaces the necessary elements (a, b) - they function as attachments for the remaining elements (c, d) - which are the stiffening elements proper - these stiffening elements could be emplaced by the institution of G - this first trial indicates two ways in which [\means] G coheres with the end: - first directly - as a means in its own right - second indirectly - as a structural support for the separate means of F∼ - preventing its collapse - compared to its total absence (G′ko) - G's presence within the structure has greater fitness - therefore the subsequent trials assume (in imagination) the structural presence of [form] G - or some G-like formula - by "structural presence" I mean institution - to help imagine the institution of G - I think of the already familiar institution of F∼ - and its deep, broad anchoring in everyday society - [there] one may: • be inclined to think ill of F∼ - but most of the people one meets|encounters will be inclined to think highly of it • speak out against F∼ - but others will generally reply in its defence • act with force (or threat of force) contrary to F∼ - but others will [generally] contrive to counter with equal or greater force (or threat) - the same now goes for G - for the duration of these trials - I beg all four [adjunct] hypotheses and more - in order to [look back and] reflect critically on G and F - and my formulation of them - I imagine the composite structure (G, F) sunk into a society - that has no other purpose than to receive and hold it - I view society instrumentally as an extension of the structural means - the mere *frame* of a vehicle - [that's] designed [just] to reach the end - or better yet - the passive *footings* of a tremendous bridge [or tower] - under trial are the main members that rise on those footings - and transmit [to it] the full load - as they span the great distance from here to there
- relation implicitly widened to include impersonal things - would-be pro - includes new things that are useful - such as: ( associative - impediments - affordances ( comparative|exclusionary - alternative endmost goals - but 1 unclear how these things can cohere with the end - except as supports to original means G 2 also includes new things that are useless - since nothing's ruled out, most of what's allowed is sure to be useless [ con - less explictly|directly incorporates stiffening element (d) above
- relation narrowed to personal action [ pro - more explictly|directly incorporates element (d) [ con - counterproductive - hurts practical utility - excludes myth - myth is expressed most effectively in art - ∴ myth relates emotion, not action - ∴ myth cannot be judged morally right in itself - ∴ myth is slighted - but myth is too important - as an institutional medium, as a structural affordance (on a level with others yet irreplaceable by them) - to be slighted - and personal action alone is not enough = illustrate with Weber's famous railway metaphor ( [Web15] ' Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men's conduct. Yet very frequently the 'world images' created by 'ideas' have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest. - those "world images" are mythic [\images] - as [involuntary] "switchmen" they do not depend directly on personal action - the [mythic] images themselves act (not the person) - they act most directly by relating a person's emotion (not action) to a goal that lies down a particular "track" - aesthetic suspension of disbelief and judgement then makes that goal a goal of the person - if only temporarily - on pain of contradicting F - such direct and decisive influence could only ever *come* from the likes of switchmen - who, viewed externally|socially, (exercise no more force | hold|wield no more power) than signalmen = mythic art is premiere means of that - in its demotion of mythic art - (along with other things that are impersonal, or don't directly facilitate action) - G'act would be counterproductive
- relator narrowed to person [ con - counterproductive - hurts practical utility - leaves out agency of things - removes direct, moral support of institutions and other structural affordances (political, technical, artistic) - they can no longer be morally right in themselves
- a deformation in which the endmost goal is widened beyond the person [ con - contradicts F - G′goal allows for - and thereby suggests - an alien goal - an alien goal contradicts F - not being a personal goal - freely chosen - but somehow coerced|forced ! [But G′goal implies no such contradiction nor countering. Necessarily the institution of the forms must avoid defeating itself by countering one or the other, but it seems inappropriate to place this necessity on the definition of the forms themselves, that by definition they exclude any possibility of such countering.]
- another deformation in which the endmost goal is potentially alien to the person - but this time because it's too narrowly constrained|stipulated|specified [ con - contradicts F - stipulates|specifies a goal that will be alien to some - likely to many - as with G′goal - that implies coercion|force [ con - counterproductive - it can happen that a narrow focus on a goal prevents one [from] achieving it = insert as example item (a) below table MFC - where I found a goal (that of M) by ceasing to search for one - since it *forces* such a focus - G′end is likely to be counterproductive
[ con - too demanding - often the most one can forsee - or adopt in advance - is an intermediary goal - that intermediary goal is not necessarily *final* - but it is *endmost* until a farther goal is adopted [ con - contradicts F - for any who lack a final goal - G′ult implies an expectation to choose one - this expectation contradicts a freedom of abstaining from choice - G's formula of "endmost goal" - by comparison - contradicts no freedom - everyone already has personal goals of some sort - or had them in the past - at least one - and therewith one that might be construed as being *endmost* among them
[ con - improper - less formal - 'purpose' seems to have un-erased material still clinging to it - 'goal' seems cleaner - being a mere formal aspect of purpose - this is not properly a con in the context of this section - being a hylomorphic reason - but rules for lack of any other criterion
- F′ko [completely] knocks F (out of | from) the structure - G alone remains [ con / - reduce likelihood of reaching end / - silently allows (not countering) a forced narrowing to a particular end / - with same effect, therefore, as G′end // ? why is that bad / - it's only in contradicting F that G′end itself is bad / - and now there's no F to contradict / - consider analogy of great statue of morality that points in one direction / - instead want statue that holds up other hand / - against those who would: / - employ force / - otherwise feel compelled to rush headlong / - as though to say "stop" / - give people time to think // ? how would that help means-end coherence = adapt stance|situation of designing blind through the "veil of ignorance" as con argument - to show harm of F′ko breakage - stance ( for use as salvage = tame this - anchoring in trials - qualifying with phrases like "in these trials," and "it appears" - achievement of end may be tight squeeze - cannot know how tight - even after the fact - nor can we know when the squeeze will come - it may come *after* we think the end has largely been secured - therefore it may happen that success depends on a small number of people - perhaps one person - cannot know who - again, not even after the fact = clarify this premise | foreward look ' one might (I claim) have decisive effect in attaining the material end - contingencies|eventualities might unroll in future such that one's present acts turn out to be decisive in regard to the end - cannot dismiss this as impossible, nor even implausible - "prove"|validate by stating a particular sequence of future contingencies that *are* plausible - viz. plausible when scoped across all individuals, of course, any one of which is considered potentially decisive / | backward look / ' necessary conditions of material end might (I claim) / include the efforts of one // can't get my head around this one - network theory (maybe unhelpful) / ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality / ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_influence_metric // seem not to mention concept of a minimal set of causes - Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation ( http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=60&docId=GALE|A424876203&docType=Report&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE|A424876203&searchId=R3&userGroupName=tplmain&inPS=true - conceives of a minimal set to innoculate - not read in full / - refs that looked promising: / 6. Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification / ( http://leonidzhukov.net/hse/2014/socialnetworks/papers/freeman79-centrality.pdf / 12. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks / ( http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n11/full/nphys1746.html / 19. Searching for superspreaders of information in real-world social media / ( http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05547 // but they seem not to conceive a minimal set of causes - the structure is designed to attain the end under this eternal "veil of ignorance" = research - Harsanyi, J. - perhaps originator of "veil of ignorance" - 1953, Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking, Journal of Political Economy, 61: 434 5. - 1955, Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility, Journal of Political Economy, 63: 309 21. - Rawls - his definition of this veil seems largely to fit my usage - except here the veil is a part of *reality* - not a fictional device of theory - moreover the larger "original position" that's central to his theory - is not a device of theory - but the actual position of the present - the means are arranged accordingly - designed under the extraordinary|extreme assumption - of having to reach that person on whom success depends - a person to whose identity designer, design, and implementation are necessarily blind - a person called "the person" - the best strategy is to maximize freedom generally = elaborate on why - maybe re-reading argument of original essay - by the same token ( equally important - though they can never know either way - *anyone* can be that person ( connection 1 of 2 to headquote below = note - and when it comes to rights - where the design can cogently bear on objects - not only on persons - anything at all might be a crucial hinge of success - a single point of failure - so the rights extend equally to all things = move this to end of section - somehow, because it's a better, deeper connection to next headquote
[ con - too demanding - F′max implies total achievement of maximum - even should one somehow come to grips with that task - one could hardly live long enough to achieve it - making it hard to identify who (or what) is the agent that does the maximizing here - by contrast - the original 'promotion' of F implies only direction, not degree - it demands only an agent who can push, prod or otherwise tend in that direction [ summary: limited assurance from trials - does not prove that abstracted forms G and F - are universally optimal *as means* ( notebook 2016.8.6 - it might be possible to abstract or otherwise obtain a better set of means - but note that (from end of previous §) this abstraction is far from arbitrary - nor even that their detailed formulation is *locally* optimal - real trials might indicate that adjustments are needed - but it does give - understanding of how/why they work - some initial confidence that: - they're apt for the job - improving on what exists at present - there's no obvious, better alternative / - personally / - I think this is [good] enough to move forward with / - as an engineer / - I'm inclined to start building / ( connection 2 of 2 to headquote below
[ headquote ( connects to bridge metaphor in preceding §, and to individual focus in its closing summaries - attribution ' Lacer, [\builder's] inscription at Alcántara bridge ( from Arabic "El Kantara" = "bridge", https://structurae.net/structures/alcantara-bridge - Caius|Gaius Julius|Iulius|Lucius Lacer - text * illustrious Lacer, with divine art, made the bridge to last forever in the perpetuity of the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_temple_of_Alc%C3%A1ntara * I leave a bridge forever in the centuries of the world ( http://jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/engineer/art2.htm - inscription on exterior of temple - adjacent to bridge - incorporating builder's tomb = source authoritative translation of inscription - bridge built in Roman Hispania - still in use ' Because of its strategic importance, the Alcantara Bridge has, over the centuries frequently been breached in one or other of its spans - and yet it has never failed, which indicates that even so relatively tall and slender a structure would stand securely even when denied its structural integrity ( The Roman bridge-builder: some aspects of his work ( http://www.istructe.org/webtest/files/62/6255c8de-b0b6-493d-a14f-62b8c9a9a240.pdf - apropos "divine art" in inscription - religion was a practical affair|matter for Romans - appropriately the chief priest at Rome was named *pontifex maximus* (supreme|greatest bridge builder) = source authoritative texts [ introduction - practice must at times take priority over theory - by whatever light and sanction|right the present [\society] affords / - before theory can return to assume the lead ( alluding both to licence for my own initiative and "divine art" of headquote - the ethic I introduced in this paper is necessarily incomplete ( not a normative ethic proper, which I only hypothesize; thesis seems a more basic ethic - I described what I think are the fundaments of an ethic - emergent in personal experience and historical time - then stopped - [well] short of a complete theory / - I stopped not only because what I described seems a nascent morality / - in itself undeveloped thus incomplete / - but also because I'm not an expert theoretician to describe it / - or prescribe it / - or whatever it needs in that way - I hope my attempt goes far enough that experts can judge the feasibility of developing that side of it - now I turn to the question of its practical side - briefly touching on it|this in conclusion [ H1, H2 - shall not be speaking of H1 here - personal test - nor yet H2 [ H3, H4 - twin purpose here is to lightly, quickly address the (practical how-to | pragmatics) of: 1) prima-facie method of validation of theory 2) immediate feasibility of introducing that method of validation = introduce § - disarming|blunting the problem of transform feasibility (2) - using party system as example of: ( notebook 2016.8.21 * practice taking priority ( recalling that theme from above * feasibility of fundamental transform - adding a see-also ref. to Habermas's STOPS - reading old theory attempts (votorola, autonomy, essay) for any other refs. = describe practice - lightly, quickly, in line with twin purpose (1, 2) - can literally make an "app" for this [ 2 immediate feasibility of introducing that method of validation - moral rightness as incentive to unpaid labour ( notebook 2016.8.30 * F - metaphor of "walls" and "pillars" if wanted ( notebook 2016.8.30 (as "F2") ( note or comment - on the incentive for unpaid labour ' [Web15p276] Strata in solid possession of social honor and power usually tend to fashion their status-legend in such a way as to claim a special and intrinsic quality of their own, usually a quality of blood; their sense of dignity feeds on their actual or alleged being. The sense of dignity of socially repressed strata or of strata whose status is negatively (or at least not positively) valued is nourished most easily on the belief that a special 'mission' is entrusted to them; their worth is guaranteed or constituted by an *ethical imperative*, or by their own functional *achievement*. Their [p277] value is thus moved into something beyond themselves, into a 'task' placed before them by God. One source of the ideal power of ethical prophecies among socially disadvantaged strata lies in this fact. Resentment has not been required as a leverage; the rational interest in material and ideal compensations as such has been perfectly sufficient.
[ driver and pedestrian ( notebook 2016.7.29 [ onlooker and stranger ( notebook 2016.8.8, 10 - judgement of abnormality ( notebook 2016.8.10 - assuming perfect knowledge - (stranger is indeed a stranger, no crime) - then another instance of wrong may be evident here - the abnormality may be preventing the onlooker from attempting a rescue - in countering his/her moral right (Fr) - the abnormality itself would then be morally wrong - the wrong does not necessarily attach to the onlooker - of course - as one is not always responsible for one's own incapacities - this is no moral licence of inaction - witness alternative case in which one is responsible for another - as a mother is for a child - denying by inaction the necessities of life to the child would be a wrongful hindrance - Catholic doctrine of doing and allowing - doctrine says (among other things) that failure to aid (e.g. a stranger) is excusable
the endmost goal of the person.
a maximum, universal sum of personal freedom.
the personal.
- ∼ fall 1988 ( Etobicoke
Practical principles are formal if they abstract from all subjective ends; they are material if they have these, and hence certain incentives, at their foundation.[4:427] Less precisely:
All rational cognition is either material and considers some object, or formal and occupied merely with the form of the understanding and of reason itself, and with the universal rules of thinking as such, regardless of differences among its objects.[4:387] See also his later Toward perpetual peace, where he poses the question
whether… one should start from the material principle of practical reason, the end (as the object of choice), or rather start from its formal principle… (whatever the end may be).[8:376-8]
- this recast ignores the alternatives (x↓, x↕) in translating "choice" to "gift" - I obtain the meaning of the choice by seeing it not as a formal set of alternatives - but as a material object of desire - namely the gift - or the material end - conversely - the ignored alternatives I see simply as the loss of that object
- I take this view from Habermas's concepts of "dramaturgical action" and "aesthetic-practical rationality" ( [Hab81] ( [Hab85]
Copyright © 2016 Michael Allan