Reconstructing Identity

ESTJ – Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging
INFP – Introversion, iNtuition, Feeling, Percieving

I am positive that many of us would have heard about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), even if we have yet to formally hear of it. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment, as quoted, is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. It extrapolates on the original theories hypothesized by psychoanalytic Carl Gustav Jung, who proposes that there were four main functions of consciousness: namely 'Sensation', 'Intuition', 'Thinking' and 'Feeling'. These functions are then modified by two main attitude types: extraversion and introversion. The MBTI adds in an additional attribute (judging/perceiving) to the theories of Jungian psychology.

With quick reference to the above two personality types, we immediately get to see that these two are a pair we would commonly associate as ‘radically different’ or ‘complimentary’. Disregarding Extraversion and Introversion (we will be touching on this in the topic ‘personal and social identity’) ‘Sensing’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Judging’ can be considered as the more ‘logical’ approach to life whilst ‘Intuition’, ‘Feeling’ and ‘Perceiving’ may be ‘perceived’ to be the more intuitive approach. While the four attributes classify the different states of the human mind, these attributes, and the Jungian theory it has it’s backing upon are actually derivative from the discipline of philosophy. It is no wonder that we have returned back to the concepts of analytical epistemology and metaphysical ontology again- It is also no wonder that the discipline of psychology is actually an application of philosophy, utilizing the scientific method, to analyze and improve the human cognition.

‘Sensing’ and ‘Intuition’ are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. In summary, they describe how new information is understood and interpreted. ‘Sensing’ individuals tend to trust information that is real, present, tangible and concrete; to them, the meaning lies within the facts and data. Do note that such information is very ‘now’ or ‘materialistic’ in essence- in other words, people who Sense are very ‘realistic’ realists. On the other hand, Intuitionists tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical. This corresponds to the ‘idealistic’ or ‘eternal’ concept that I had touched upon on the topic of the Now and Eternal.

‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ are the decision-making (Judging) functions. They are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). While ‘Thinking’ individuals (as quoted by Wikipedia) ‘tend to decide things… by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules, those who prefer 'feeling' tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation’. Recalling the concept of intuition as a form of intellectual empathy, we get a direct link that ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ are actually derivatives from the concepts of Logical Analysis and metaphysical Intuition.

Beyond the theories of Carl Jung, Myers and Briggs had factored in an additional attribute to the human psyche known to be the ‘preferential lifestyle’. They had believed that some people prefer to live a lifestyle of Perception (sensing and intuition) while others prefer one of Judgment via their thoughts and feelings. In other words, the attributes of ‘Judgment’ and ‘Perception’ are henceforth the integrated product of ‘Sense’, ‘Intuition’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ on the MBTI scale; or Now, Eternal, logic and Intuition on the Moderation Doctrine.

Now, it is empathetically understandable that there can be no ‘right or wrong answer’ to the various outcomes that may arise via the permutation of the above four (of three we are currently concerned with insofar). This is partially because statistics have shown that the distribution of results over multiple individuals are more or less balanced; moreover, equal proportion of individuals from many of the different groups have lived rather successful, if not contented lives.

However, from the previous faculty of the Moderation Doctrine, we had concluded objectively that there are both strengths and weaknesses of logic and intuition itself. Recapping, logic is essential to our lives, it provides us objective truths in our epistemological knowledge. However it is very easily warped by the human will- even up to two opposing viewpoints on a given (set) situation, just as long as the flow has unity and coherence. Intuition, on the other hand, gives us the true experience of answers. However the truth it provides can be easily influenced by the logical interpretation by the human mind (since the human brain is logical in construct). The same we had concluded over the ‘Now’ and ‘Eternal’. Excessive emphasis on the ‘now’ would result in materialism and secularism, while, the opposite would result in the ‘idealistic’ life that bears no relevance to the world today. As a conclusion, we had stated that the objectively living best would be a life of integration of both logical analysis and intuitive experience, in both the material and idealistic.

Now what implications does it impose on the results of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Since there is very little distinction of the Moderation Doctrine and the MBTI, it logically concludes that while all current outcomes of the MBTI are equally ‘right’, there is actually an objective ‘better’ among all the available permutations. This objective answer is actually the balanced answer of moderation on the MBTI, or the answer when the test results in an equal proportion of ‘Sensing’ and ‘Intuition’ traits, as well as in the attributes of ‘Thought’ and ‘Feeling’.

Putting this in very layman’s terms at a very elementary concept- rather than being on a single side of life, why not be on both sides and have the best of both worlds?

Of course, such discourses on the ‘living best’ cannot be justified with the re-conceptualization of such layman’s terms. We as humans cannot, for a fact, change our personalities overnight upon our own free will due to natural determinism. Neither can we assume that an integrated personality would definitely be objectively better (all the time) than a personality that lies on one of the sixteen possible outcomes- this is because while it is true that ‘the best of both worlds’ may be integrated, the contrary outcome, or ‘the worst of both worlds’ may too be integrated in such a ‘moderated’ life. Henceforth it would be philosophically unwise to attempt to change our personalities now that we have found an objective answer to the MBTI.

However, it is important to note once again that I have yet to factor in the attributes of Introvertism and Extravertism. I will give a more detailed explanation on the topic of Social Identity, but the current preclusion also lies within a certain sort of balance of the Introvert and the Extravert. As for now, this balance theory is still very confined to the individual mental cognition. But as a form of conclusion, we have reasoned out that there is indeed an objective answer to the truth of the ‘living best’, and that this objective answer would lie in accordance to the integration (or moderation) of ‘logic’, ‘intuition’, ‘now’ and ‘eternal’ as represented by ‘Sensing’, ‘Intuition’, ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ on the MBTI.

In the next topic, I’ll be covering the topic of personal identity. I believe that such an analysis is overly simplistic and does not do the topic justice- In the meantime; any form of criticism or comment is welcomed.
*

Side note:

Do note that there has been a slight error in conceptual re-representation from the Moderation Doctrine to the theories of Carl Jung adopted by the MBTI. This error would lie in the definition of intuition. In the Moderation Doctrine, ‘Intuition’ is defined as the metaphysical intuitive intellectual empathy (experience). In the theories of Jungian psychology and the MBTI, ‘intuition’ is known as a trust of abstract and theoretical information. In the above excerpt, I have attempted to clarify this error by the introduction of inverted commas (‘’) onto the Jungian ‘Intuition’ as opposing to the Intuition brought forward by metaphysics and the Moderation Doctrine.

Should the Moderation Doctrine (a derivation of philosophy) and the MBTI (a derivation of psychology) be mapped out side by side, the following conceptual links should be consistent and synonymous:


Logic (Logical Analysis) ------------------- ‘Thought’
Intuition (intellectual sympathy) ------- ‘Feelings’
Material (Now) ----------------------------- ‘Sense’
Idealistic (eternal) ------------------------- ‘Intuition’

Should there be any further difficulties in the interpretation of terms and concepts within this excerpts, do feel free to comment at the response page or on the discussion board at the side of this webpage.

The Balance

How do we want to live our lives?

Many of us must have thought at some point of our lives this very question, and many different attitudes may have been adopted from the answers we had given ourselves then. Below is a little compilation of responses I had acquired over time from friends and colleagues around me, generalized, and I believe this list is not exhaustive-

Work hard, play hard
Dream big, live great
Study hard in university and get a good job after graduation
First class Honors
See how the grades go and decide from there
Take it one day at a time- things will settle themselves when the time comes (ORD 1st then talk la)
Live ordinary lo
Get a million bucks by age N
Get 500 Facebook contacts by graduation (be popular!)
Join this or that Church (religious) group
Pick up driving (or any other relevant/new skills)
How I know? Why did you ask?

Now, do allow me to ask you this very question- how do you want to live your lives?

The first topic we had discussed about is on whether there is an objective truth to the living best. Our answer to that question that there is indeed a truth- objective, just that since it’s obscured it’s currently still subjective to each and every person’s opinion. Indeed, the concept of Living Best is very subjective, and it is precisely of this very reason why there is no objective right or wrong to the above answers given in my mini poll. But realists (not relativists) have shown that there is an objective truth to everything and they are determined to seek it out- philosophers were idealistic realists, and they have tried over the ages to seek out the true way of living (and the meaning of life). They have theorized up the concepts of Ontology, Epistemology, Realism (Materialism), and Idealism- This in turn transcripts to Feeling, Logic, Now and Eternal as stated in the Moderation Doctrine.

A quick acknowledgement of the first two factors (feeling and logic) would lead us to the conclusion that we need both Feelings and Logic in our lives. Of course I would like to stress once more that since we humans, being rationale creatures, cannot dispense with logic even with our most intuitive feelings. We are taught to love and appreciate our life as the days go by; we are also made known that the skills of thinking critically, planning ahead, analysis and deduction play a very important, if not critical role, to our survival and well-being. Of course as much as we are bogged down by our thoughts and falling into the edge of depression we are also taught to just sit back, relax and ‘don’t think about it’.

Another parallel drawn across the Nows and the Eternals would result a need of both Materialistic and Idealistic concepts. Indeed, the philosophy, aims and values of life may sound grand and lofty in nature, but they would remain no more as ‘castles in the air’ unless some sort of concrete enactment (or evidence) is ‘materialized’ to back up its ideals. Then and again, in the business world, they always say we have to dream big to start living great. No dreams, no greatness. Simple.

Appreciate life, sit back, relax and don’t think too much
Start thinking about your life man, and stop slacking
Stop daydreaming and making castles in the air
Dare to Dream great.

It would be little wonder for any of us to have heard at least one of the above four ‘layman’s advice’ sometime in our lives.

Now, indeed it may sound contradictory to many whom have experienced both incidences when they are advised to do this and otherwise simultaneously. How are we supposed to sit back and appreciate life when we have to keep thinking and working? On the other hand, how are we supposed to not dream if we have to ‘dream big’ in order to achieve greatness? So are we supposed to be appreciating, or thinking? Dreaming, or doing? If each of the four statements has an objective logic behind them that makes them right in a certain respect, how could they all be reconciled?

The truth behind the contradiction lies in the need of integration and balance. Note that when we are too logical based (and thinking too hard), we are encouraged to sit back, feel and appreciate- on the other hand when we sit back and enjoy too much, society prompts (or forces) us back to the logic of education and work- simple. The same applies to dreams and working reality-

Moderation between the Epistemological and the Ontological, between Materialism and Idealism- and being realists throughout. Indeed, it may sound daunting that such layman’s terms we usually take for granted were actually derived from such lofty philosophies as advocated by Hume, Kant, Bergson, Parmenides, and Bertrand Russell. But be it the cheem method or the coffee-shop talk, the aims of being is still objectively similar. At the end of the day, it is imperative that we have to encompass a healthy balance of thoughts and feelings, both realistic and idealistic in their own respect, in miscible proportions.

This is the living best we all seek- if there is an objective way of living the best of our lives, it would be this integrated lifestyle of logic and feeling, both ‘real’ and ideal.

Now, let us go back to the little list we have compiled towards the question “how do we want to live our lives”. A quick browse through would have us instinctively know that some answers are more ‘righteous’ than others. Definitely, ‘work hard, play hard’ would sound correct while ‘How I know, why did you ask’ would sound like a plausible answer given by a man living in decadence. Do allow me to use the four point moderation scale to give a brief analysis of the epistemological, ontological, materialistic and idealistic backing towards some of these answers.

Work hard, play hard
Work used in this respect is generally defined as doing logic. This term is commonly used in conjunction with education, corporate work and other miscellaneous tasks that would require logical thinking in both the ‘materialistic (technical)’ and ‘idealistic’. Play on the other hand is synonymous to ‘enjoyment and appreciation’; this is ontological in nature, however it banks more on the ‘materialistic’ than on the ‘idealistic’.

Dream big, live great
Dreams here are generally idealistic- the general meaning of this phrase is that our ‘materialistic’ life can be influenced (forged) by our idealistic dreams, of course we know that the extent of our dreams are also dependent of the lifestyle we are currently living, this is the balance of the ‘Now’ and ‘Eternal’.

Study hard in university and get a good job after graduation
First class Honors
Get a million bucks by age N
Do note that the above three phrases are more related to ‘the goals in life’ rather than the ‘method of living’. Indeed, the three people whom have given the above three answers have generally mixed up the objective of their question (and had given a materialistic answer to an idealistic question), and sadly this is also with the case of many around us too. Perhaps they were implying that they would wish to live their lives by constantly setting and achieving goals in their lives- but it is important to note that goals themselves can be both epistemological and ontological in nature, with issues pertaining to both the materialistic and the idealistic.

See how the grades go and decide from there
Take it one day at a time- things will settle themselves when the time comes (ORD 1st then talk la)
At first glance it seems that such an outlook towards life is one that is very intuitive in nature, and (negatively speaking) one with very little planning beforehand- like goldfish. Nevertheless we cannot judge that such attitudes are objectively wrong- indeed, human cognition has evolved from the basic reaction of circumstances and instincts to the ability to plan and have self control. Yet the over-emphasis of planning and self-control would result in the diminishing of the self (I’ll discuss this in greater detail on Identity)

Live ordinary lo
Now, the attitude of living ordinary has two distinct types. The first is synonymous with the intuitive attitude (see above). However the latter attitude may be one of post-enlightenment- it is noted that many outstanding people (religious) and philosophers had adopted such a doctrine of living after decades of searching for the true meaning of life. This is especially highlighted in the book of Ecclesiastes: “How are the wise better off than fools? What good does it do to the poor to know how to face life? It is useless… It is better to be satisfied with what you have than to be always wanting something else.” Ec 6:8-9

Get 500 Facebook contacts by graduation (be popular!)
The topic of individuality and socialization would be touched on the next chapter.

Join this or that Church Group
Pick up driving (or any other relevant/new skills)
Indeed, a positive form of life could be lived by constantly picking up skills or the development of the individuality (for most religious groups emphasize on intuitive love)- Sigmund Freud has once stated that the two possible greatest aims of human life is to Love and Work. Note that the ‘Work’ that he coins to that concept goes beyond the definition of corporate work, but rather extends to education and the gaining of knowledge (both pragmatism and empiricism) at the ‘workplace’. Do also note that the concepts of Love and Work can be loosely derived from the current concept of ‘Feeling’ and ‘Logic’; I’ll dwell into the details soon.

How I know? Why did you ask?
(What can I say?)


Interestingly, the above responses actually have their own banking on the four point scale that I have introduced today. While some may be idealistic or intuitive in nature, there are various outlooks of life ie: Work hard, play hard; dream big, live great and live ordinary lo that require a certain degree of integration of points within the scale. It must be understood that while the Moderation Doctrine is something that I may have coined to this intuitive concept on the meaning of life, such idealistic outlooks were definitely not of my composition.

And hence the conclusion that such a ‘balance theory’ is universal and the truth of its existence is objectively correct.

As a conclusion, we have classified and broken down our lives into four broad and distinct categories, namely: Logic Now, Logic Eternal, Feeling (intuitive) Now and Feeling (intuitive) Eternal. These four categories are very philosophical in nature, and that they are currently applied to life at personal level insofar. In the next post I’ll attempt to make a transition between the disciplines of philosophy and psychology. I’ll attempt to explain then how these four basis could be permutated and further derived to form memories, behaviors, emotions, tendencies, consciousness and ultimately our identities.

The Now and Eternal - The real and the ideal

If we were to consider the concepts of Realism and Idealism, an entire myriad of philosophical concepts would have been touched upon- Realism would subcatagorize to objectivism (see Truth) and from objectivism further subcatagorize to Materialism (not to be confused with materialistic), Idealism would be created from the parent concept of subjective epistemology, integrated with ontological concepts, forming the 'idealism', as opposing to materialism, that we know today. An entire branch of philosophy, possibly even greater than the concepts of Epistemology and Ontology (Logic and intuitive feelings) would have to be touched upon. Indeed, it is possible to derive the concepts of 'Now' and 'Eternal' from the concepts of 'Realism- such a process would allow us to fully understand the origins of the 'Now' and the 'Eternal'; but it would be extremely tedious to do so.

From the previous topics, we have moved from the concepts of 'epistemology' and 'ontology' to that of 'Logic' and 'Feelings'. Do note that similar they may be, the former two are after all arbitrary concepts within the world of philosophy. The latter, however, are a form of practical application of the former two concepts. They seem in a way much more real, applicable, and associable than their parental concepts. In this sense I can actually state that 'Logic and Feelings' are more realistic (and Now) than 'Epistemology and Ontology', which strikes to be more Idealistic (Eternal) and impracticable.

Now, we know our real world consists of Materialistic things, and idealistic ideals. For a start we have Engineering and romantic love, and then we also have the all those crazy concepts (see above) and religious doctrines. Note that Engineering and those crazy concepts are logic based (epistemological), do also note that romantic love and religion requires intuitive feelings, and then when integrated with some logic themselves, emotions. In quick conclusion all Logic and Feelings have a realistic application to it, and also an idealistic approach to it.

Now, how from 'Realism (Materialism) and Idealism' to 'Now and Eternal'? From the previous post, we can see that our real world and selves are bounded by time and space. Reality itself is a now, while abstract concepts and God, being able to withstand the tests of time, are henceforth eternal. In fact, eternity itself is an idealistic concept- just as the concepts of infinity and zero.

Humans today have little problem perceiving the 'Nows' of our world. We ourselves, being real and exist, can therefore associate and identify materialistic Truths easily. We can be in touch with our feelings and sentiments, and hence we be beings with emotions. We design our world and think ahead for our future jobs and aspirations, we socialize and acquaint, we talk and play soccer, and we go down to Orchard and Dhoby to relax on a weekend.

But then, what about the eternals? What about the ideals? God is an ideal (perfection and eternity is ideal) and few theists really understand who he really is. As stated before, all philosophical concepts are ideal (being universally accepted ideas) but most relate it to be cheem and impracticable. Integration is an idealistic concept, but other than the applications of integration (which is integration made real or integration in today's world), we have absolutely no clue how it actually comes about. Few students would see light in studying scientific concepts unless they may apply such knowledge realistically (and in real-time) through Engineering and technology. Few people truly appreciate art and music unless they see a beautiful face (or worse pictures) or hear their favourite songs play on their radio.

On both 'logic and feeling' faculties, this tendency to the Nows and away from the Eternals are what many would associate as materialism (in layman's terms now). I am indeed sure that at some point of time we would ask ourselves why is the world so materialistic and people so superficial- these questions are directly formed due to materialism. People associate for personal gains, and seek personal gains for a 'better future'. This better future they seek is one of monetary and status-bearing rewards- they are real, gratifying, and 'here and now' so as to speak. As a result we see our friends acting superficially in the most selfish of ways- we then wonder what happened to true friendship and true love.

It is no wonder that concepts such as true friendship and love are idealistic. Unlike money and status, there is no hard and fast rule in determining what qualities a 'true friendship or love' should be, yet and again people of every ages have dreamt of such values just as how humans of every culture have came up gods and goddesses. In other words, such an idea is timeless and eternal. Materialistic people definitely lack such Eternal aspects in their lives, and values are one such form that they lack- it is no wonder why many people say people today have little or no values.

Of course this does not necessarily mean that we ought not think and feel realistically and turn to the idealistic. Very devout people are idealistic, and gurus are a very fine example of such devout people, but we hardly want to live a life exactly like them unless we are pretty certain we don't want to 'live' anymore. A tend too much to the idealistic and eternal would render us 'spirited away' or 'stuck in our own world of dreams'- indeed, it wouldn't hurt thinking once in a while on how would an ideal world be if we can allow it, but a life-long obsession in creation of a utopia would be definitely psychotic and dangerous. For extreme idealism results in fascism and narcissism. Hitler was one problem, hard-core terrorists is also another.

Of course, one of the underlying doubts we have to clear today is the fact that Ideals are also Truths. We study Ideal gases and Fluids although such gases and fluids to not exist real time. Morality is ideal and eternal in essence, and although we have screamed many a times it is no more than humanist ideals we still cannot dispense it if we were to want to survive. Finally the debate on whether God exists still continues- after all, universal ideals inevitably become real, and if eternity itself were to be considered considerably presently, it would evidently also be a 'now' so as to speak.

With this I conclude this topic of the Now and Eternal. Indeed, this concept is indeed brought forward as an eye-opener, and there are many holes left open for discussion and criticism, but I believe that such an address would be substantial as far as it is concerned. I will point out various aspects of the world and consider them in greater detail after the full integration of concepts in The Moderation itself. Hopefully by then, now that we have finally touched on all four bases of the picture, begin to see the full picture of the world and reconstruct it from there.

The Now and Eternal - an introduction

Philosophically speaking, all knowledge (and Truths) are either epistemological or ontological in nature. Putting this in layman's terms, the doctrines of both logic and intuitive experience can explain to us the whole world.

Indeed, I would wish to re-iterate once more that this little project we have here today (I don't want to make it sound too exclusive to me) tries to explain the true meaning of life, and hopefully identify the best way of living life should the previous statement itself be true. We have started our search by identifying the existence of truth, and working it down to prove that via the philosophical doctrines of epistemology and ontology, this truth is integratory, and it exists somewhere in the spectrum between our thoughts and feelings.

Of course I could have came out with a whole new set of posts to convey the same message across. Most books that attempt to make (themselves and others) the best of their lives usually come in the form of optimistic sounding self help books to either waking up saying yes to life or to smile at someone even though the other person just pissed you off again. Indeed these books have their groundings, and the groundings they had built up such 'techniques of making you a better person' are actually from the doctrines of epistomology and ontology. However, these books are also very noctorious for the introduction of very idealistic and impractical claims. Smiling regularily at someone who just pissed you off can make truly make your life better, but they don't really explain why and how, and doing something that you don't fully understand may end up making your life even more screwed up in the first place.

And henceforth the reason why I had intended to build up this 'aim to a better life' on a method of reason. On face value, it would give future ideas at least a solid grounding lest it be criticized as un-based and idealistic. But such reasons do not end just there- I sincerely wish that we (especially I myself) can appreciate that the true aims of philosophy and it's daughter subjects is to perfect life and living; that such subjects that we conventionally know as 'cheem' is actually very simple in essence, and very practicable in our everyday lives.

Now that we have identified the two chief 'ingredients' to the true way of life, it is imperative for us to synthesize such ingredients into a single comprehensive model to attempt to conceptualize and explain life from there. Yet we know that even within the faculties of 'logic' and 'feelings', toned down from the philosophical doctrines of epistomology and ontology, are still extremely diverse and abstract. We still can't explain why the world seems materialistic and superficial, we can't explain what needs, commitment, passion and appreciative trust have to do in common although we have a rough inkling that it loosely ties up to the partial concepts of love. we still can't explain whats wrong with going to the church to socialize if both socialism and belief in God is intuitive/feeling based and religion be the advocate of the 2nd doctrine of intuitive experience and being.

Indeed, such abovementioned problems can be expalined with the doctrines of 'epistomology' and 'ontology', or if we were to integrate the thoughts and feelings of all of us humans into one complex equation via the disciplines of psychology and sociology and simplifying from there. Even so, it is already asserted from these disciplines that we may at most identify tendencies within groups to such truths. We have yet to have such precise knowledge to read the workings (integrated thoughts and feelings) of individual minds, and divination is definitely a subject I will not be entertaining anytime soon in this project. So how are we to link and explain much of our world today with such abstract concepts of epistemology and ontology via our thoughts and feelings? We definitely have to still sub-divide the cake up into smaller, conprehensible pieces.

Do take note that while I had touched on the workings of logic and intuitively feelings, I have made certain allusions to the concept of Time from point to point. i.e. On Logic, Education and our lives- I had raised an issue of 'technicalities' against 'true philosophical aims' of the subject of education. Now, 'technicalities' I had alluded to a sub-concept of 'logic now' and 'true philosophical aims' under another sub-concept of 'logic eternal'. On Intuition, Feelings and Emotions I had put forward the example of socialization and religion (see above), now do note that I can easily coin 'socialization' as a 'intuitive feeling now' and religion a 'intuitive feeling eternal'. These concepts may not truly fit into the subjects we are talking about, but at least they do bear certain similarities.

Now, it is true in philosophy that epistemology and ontology are independent the concepts of time and space. Such philosophical concepts are by itself eternal, and being concepts themselves, they persist without change over time and space. It is no wonder that the philosophies of the ancient greeks are mostly still held valid today, or the findings of Hume and Kant still widely studied three hundred years later in universities and books. Indeed, the concepts of Epistemology and Ontology has remained virtually unchanged since the times of Paramedies and Heraliticus (ancient greeks), they had always aimed the understanding of life, but somehow they are still incapable of giving even a satisfactory explanation of our world today.

Life that we know of is dependent of time. Epistemology and Ontology may be independent of time, but as we move down to the more familiar concepts of Thoughts and Feelings, we have to undertand that by this process we have in a way em-bodied such time-less concepts into another bounded by time and space- ourselves. We human beings, unlike concepts, are bounded by time and space. The concepts that we come up with may be eternally recorded within paper and logic, but we are bounded by conciousness (preconciousness) and memories- Intuitive feelings now become sensations to remember tomorrow. Generally speaking, when we attempt to explain life actual from concepts, it is imperative that we should at least factor in the concepts of time and space.

As I have introduced in The Moderation Doctrine - An Introduction, the two additional concepts of time I would be introducing would be the concepts of Now and Eternal. These two concepts are loosely based on the philosophical concepts of Realism and Idealism (realism for now, idealism for eternal), I would not wish to explain in very great detail about the derivations of such idealistic concepts into reality as it is- partially because these two concepts are far more abstract than that of epistemology and ontology, and partially because this project is not a project aimed for the the understanding of philosophy but the understanding of life. Nevertheless, the factor of Now and Eternal into the pre-existing concepts would hence explain life better.


In the next post, I shall attempt to give a very short derivation of the concepts of Now and Eternal- on how it had been derived from Realism and Idealism, and how relavent is it to our lives. Hopefully, I would by then be able to integrate these four primary concepts into one map which may fully construct the individual, and from the individual in turn construct the world as it is today.

Summary

Key conceptual links covered since the first post:

Strand A : From Truth to us

Objectivism and Subjectivism
0) Truth exists
1) Truth is objective and subjective - Metaphysical objectivism vs subjectivism
2) The study of objectivism and subjectivism lies in the philosophy of epistomology and ontology

Epistemology and Ontology
3) Epistemology is the Theory of Knowledge that focuses on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as Truth, belief and justification
4) Ontology is the study of nature in being, existence and reality, it is traditionally Metaphysical

Pragmatism and Empiricism
5) Pragmatism considers practical consequences to be vital components to meaning and truth (this leads to causality and determinism)
6) Formal Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from experience (evidence)
7) True Empiricism is ontological and forms the basis of Metaphysics and the Intuitive experience

Logic and Intuition (philosophy)
8) Logic is a study of principles of valid demonstration (formal empiricism) and inference (pragmatism)
9) Intuition derives from true Empiricism and focuses on being and experience

Thought and Feelings
10) Thought is a mental process that involves the mental manipulation of information and concepts, the analysis of thinking is part of cognitive psychology
11) Feeling is the norminalization to feel, either through experience or perception. It is the conscious subjective experience of emotion.

Strand B : On the advocators

The scientific method:
Epistemological in nature and applicable to all natural sciences (phy chem bio psy & cpt), it advocates Pragmatism and Determinism, on which it clashes with religion on the topic of Nature vs Nurture. From there it promotes Logic (philosophy) and logical thought, which clashes with religion once more on the existence of God.

The religious and religious-quasi doctrines:
Ontological in nature, it clashes within itself due to the multiple subjective interpretations of Truth. It advocates True Empiricism and Intuitive experience, for it's teachings tend on the experience of God and love rather than the Science of God. From that it clashes with science, for intuition provides no concrete reason and proof for the existence of God. It advocates feelings (good) and the soul, which clashes with science over the issue of Determinism and the Free Will.

Education:
Mainstream education aims to bring truth via the scientific method, or epistemologically. The promotion of the 'living classroom' and other co-curricular activities attempts to balance this epistemological method with ontology.

Do note that this list is not exhaustive and carries on from Thought and Feeling through the topic of Personal and Social Identity. Some of the above concepts may too be unfamiliar over the past excerpts- I will definitely dwell into them in the near future.

On Intuition, feelings and emotions - Part 3

One of the most controversial aspects of sentiments (and intuition) is the fact that sentiments (and intuition) bring about as much destruction and hindrance to our quest of perfecting knowledge as much as it allows us to understand the world.

In part one; I have touched briefly on the benefits and hindrances of intuition and feelings on the world today. The strengths I have expounded in slightly greater detail in part two, and I hope to touch on the possible hindrances of intuition and feelings onto the quest for truth of life today in this post. In the last post the most important takeaway was the idea that Intuition seeks Truth not by logical reasoning and analysis of the world around us, but by the very act of experiencing and reliving truths as it happens around us. Putting this sentence in a very warped context, we can find out the truth that fire is dangerous by reading about it and looking at all the pictures of burnt victims in a medical book or a fire safety poster; or we can understand this truth by touching fire and burning our fingers along the way.

Putting this in an empiricist concept, that’s why experiments are crucial even in the scientific method- I am sure by now we have finally found the answer to the question:

How much can you say it’s true that there are atoms in the desk? Just because some textbook or teacher tells you so? Do you actually go to the Science Laboratory and put it under the microscope the experience it for yourself? (From the Moderation Doctrine – An introduction)

On the previous topic on Education, Logic and our lives, we get to see that one of the biggest weaknesses of logical thought is that logic can be warped easily to two differing arguments, the simple logic of ‘Logic from philosophy is impractical to our lives unless we apply it extensively onto today’s world’ has been the prime cause of the over-emphasis of technicalities over true philosophy- and this has further logically led to the warped aims of education to study for examinations and most political problems of today.

On the other hand intuition, feelings and sentiments are also subject to weaknesses and deviations to the Truth. Pure Intuition allows us to live truth, but it does not allow us to know and identify the truth unless we have some sort of epistemological (logical) knowledge beforehand to link that experience to pre-existing concepts and commit them to memory. A goldfish may have as much intuition as we do, but without logical thought and analysis, and memory (the dynamics I’ll delve into soon), it may never understand the truth that swimming into a filter pump would result in rather disastrous results, rather much to the demise of its friend last weekend.

Feelings, on the other hand, have always been the blame for the irrational actions of many. This is seen especially on the issue of religion. Today, I’ll dwell deeper into this issue to highlight the fallacies of the intuitive method of explaining truth.

There has been an increase of people (youths especially) subscribing to a religion (especially Christianity) recently. A closer examination on them has shown that most of them had simply gone to church simply because their friends are there. They believe that the Church is a great place to socialize, make friends, and know more about the salvation of Jesus at the same time. Indeed they in turn become devout people of their faith, and to the next generation become the reason of religion- for salvation from their teenage angst, for socialization, and ultimately for entertainment.

Now, I personally do not have the authority to make judgment whether such aims of religion are objectively or subjectively wrong, for indeed each and every person has a personal reason for his faith we cannot judge. But on a macro scale, we get to see that these reasons are mainly feeling orientated. Entertainment, as I had discussed earlier, are very much to appeal the senses rather than the analytical mind. The aims of such socializing are too for the enjoyment of life, unless their aims are for networking and the study of sociology. Finally, their faith can be described as one as of an intuitive, fediestical faith of trust, hope and love.

A calculated move? Or an act of impulse? Much of the world has shown its disdain, their primary source of attack on the lack of logic of such people. From the viewpoints of the devout, this group of people mars the true aims of God and religion ‘to explain our lives, guide us and show us the way, the truth and the life’. From the critical atheist whom had already shown skepticism over the validity of religion this has been deemed as a ‘completely illogical move that makes religion sound even more ridiculous than it already is.’

Of course, there is also an element of logic for the actions of this group of people. As I had stated earlier, even feelings have an element of logic to it for humans being rational, require both logic and intuitive experience in what they do. But in summary, we see that such actions, where feelings take presidency over true logical analysis and thought, result in actions we deem as irrational and illogical. Now, should I suppose for an instance that there is indeed a possible way to explain that God does exist; I can definitely come up with the following conclusions:

This group of people did intuitively experience God (objectively). They will be right when they say that God exists.
But like the goldfish, they can never know (in essence) the complete Truth on whether God exists.
This is because they cannot, or did not, or would not explain the existence of God.
To other people (this is subjective), they are still living in denial, and whatever they say about God will still be deemed illogical and irrational.

I am sure that such conclusions do not apply strictly on this group of people only. I do not wish to impart an impression that I disdain such people whom subscribe to religion based on ‘feeling based’ reasons. Neither am I downplaying the importance of feelings and faith (when it comes to religion). Indeed, the fallacy of intuition and feelings also addresses the irrationality of those people whom put complete faith in everything they do, but are unable to justify their reasons for doing so.

And so to the fanatics of today- Moderated Islamic scholars have agreed in unison that the concept of ‘Jihadism’ has been marred by many Muslim terrorists today. Indeed, the true concept of Jihad was to be a ‘struggle’ for ‘striving in the way of Allah’. However, sentiments arisen from freedom, land and hatred to American communities have led to the blatant misinterpretation of the word to one of terrorism and fanaticism.

Is it logical? No. Is it sentiment-based? Yes. Is it the fallacy of the religion to blame? No. Is it a fallacy of the over-emphasis of intuitive feelings then? Yes.

Intuition, just like logic, is amoral- both aspects can be bent both ways to the objective truth or against it.

Indeed, with the above statement I have officially concluded by discussion on the topic of Intuition, Feelings and Emotions. And in conjunction with the topic of Education, Logic and our lives I have finally addressed the two fundamental doctrines of philosophy, their purposes, strengths and weaknesses. In the next post I would discuss in greater detail about the ‘now and forever’ theory of both Logic and Feelings. I may have made some headway of this theory over the past six posts, but nevertheless I would like to address it formally before I get the action proper of synthesizing these concepts into a single model that I believe would explain our lives very much in detail in the posts to come.

On Intuition, feelings and emotions - Part 2

It may be hard to understand, but sentiments and emotions are actually a part of the intuitive experience. In other words, sentiments emotions and experience are all actually one 'concept'. The 'experience' coined in metaphysics is not an ‘experience’ the human mind remembers after an activity is accomplished, but rather it is actually the state of being, or the emotions we feel at that point of time when we be.

______________

I am certain that all of us are aware of the different categories of books available in the libraries around us today. Indeed, some libraries may have more books than others, yet the basic categories of books are usually still in place nevertheless. We usually got to see familiar categories such as the Children’s Fiction, Children’s non-fiction, Fiction, Newspaper and Magazine, Audio and Videotapes, as well as the General Collection.

Of course we may collectively group them together into three broader subjects- Children’s Fiction and Fiction may be lumped together under the subject of Literary Fiction. The arrangement of topics for Children’s non-fiction resembles closely to that of the General Collection. Audio and Videotapes are usually adapted from books from the former two subjects. Finally Newspapers and Magazines make up the third subject of modern-day information.

Now if we were to take a closer look at the 2nd subject of General Collection, we find out that it is categorized via the Dewey decimal classification into ten main classes. Further sub-divisions may refine the books into a hundred divisions, and to a thousand sections. This form of classification is aimed to organize all knowledge comprehensively. There is a common misconception that the DDC only classifies non-fiction (or 2nd subject) books only; in actual fact, all books from the subject of Fiction (1st subject) are classified under cat 800+ of the DDC on the topic of Literature. The 3rd Subject too lies under cat 000+ on the topic of Information and General works.

In other words, there is actually in essence no distinction between any of the subjects. Putting in an empirical sense- as all books convey knowledge in some sort or other, henceforth they are actually the same in essence.

The classes of books are arranged in this format:
·000 – Computer science, information, and general works
·100 – Philosophy and psychology
·200 – Religion
·300 – Social sciences
·400 – Languages
·500 – Science and Mathematics
·600 – Technology and applied science
·700 – Arts and recreation
·800 – Literature
·900 – History and geography and biography
Now it is very important to note that the integration of the above ten classes of books actually forms up the complete knowledge of our lives.

Indeed, there may be infinite books that may be published in the times to come. There may be infinite topics that may be discussed in the future, with each topic a sub-division or a blend of the above ten classes. The DDC has already taken into account this possibility with its ability to divide and permutate itself into an infinite amount of decimals. But do note that all books, including that of metaphysics (cat 110) present knowledge in a logical and analytical manner. This is because knowledge requires concepts to propagate, and words are in essence a form of conceptual representation.

But in essence (note that I keep re-iterating essence), there is only one life. This life is intuitive.

Now, what does this lead to? From here I would like to direct your attention onto the concepts of Multiplicity, Pragmatism and Empiricism. These three concepts are philosophical in nature, and they officially touch on the contrasts between logical thought and intuitive experiences to finding the truth of our lives.

The concept of Multiplicity is distinguished into two different methods- Namely Continuous Multiplicities and Discrete Multiplicities. Discrete Multiplicities tend to focus more on the quantitative properties of truth while Continuous multiplicities apply towards the qualitative principles of our lives. As according to Bergson, the doctrine of logical analysis and concepts attempt to explain truths discretely via the study of logical cause and effect (pragmatism, determinism) as well as experiential evidence (formal empiricism). On the other hand, Continuous Multiplicities and ‘true’ empiricism tend to come together to form another doctrine of intuitive experiences, intellectual sympathy and intuitive feelings. The study of these two doctrines forms the basis of nearly everything that we know of.

Now, putting back into today’s context of intuition and feelings (which are actually one in essence) as well as the earlier mention of the library and knowledge; we got to see a sort of similarity between the three. Note that Bergson had stated that The Concept can only symbolize a particular property (of an intuition) by making it common to an infinity of things…. And have the inconvenience of dividing the concrete unity of the object into so many symbolical expressions… and that Metaphysics must transcend concepts in order to reach intuition.

These words are evident every time we go to the library. The General Collection may have an infinity of books, and from the books may come an infinity of concepts that come hand-in-hand to map out our entire knowledge of our lives and the world around us. But these concepts, infinite they may seem, or no matter how accurate in explaining our lives, remain no more as conceptual words upon paper, and may never truly be representative of life and reality (in a very literal sense of book vs. human).

This has been the ultimate truth of intuition. Not that it help explains the truth of our lives that logic and education seeks to help us understand us and the world. But rather it is the experience, that intuition, of feeling, and being, that had made us understand Truth without having to know it in the first place.

Indeed, that has been the major argument for feelings and sentiments, as expressed through various philosophical movies like Equilibrium and the Matrix. That it gives the people the sense of life and being, as well as the purpose of carrying on in the artificially created societies based upon the scientific method. In both movies, the scientific (logical) communities are always portrayed as cold, unfeeling, life-less characters while the more sentimental beings are portrayed as more humane and experiential characters.

This be the reason why so- that the 2nd doctrine of intuition provides the basis of life and meaning. This be the reason too to why most religions (apart that of the philosophy of Buddhism) always tend to promote an experiential faith of appreciating life and doing Good, rather than concentrating on the technicalities of the world’s construction and the science of God. For feeling is the best human response to the true concept of intuitive being, and being requires no concepts to understand the truth of life itself.

This be the reason why most religions oppose the over emphasis of the logical technicalities of our everyday life- not that it is bad or it will kill us (as they say); but rather because no matter how much we may try to reconstruct life in terms of concepts and technicalities of our jobs and knowledge, we may never, and unwittingly sacrifice our lives in turn, to experience life- the sentiments of life, and the intuitive state of being as it truly is.

Life, that one very intuition that speaks a library of words- I am indeed not mad to say it is so.

Of course there are the technicalities of feelings, onto the different state of mind and emotions; those I believe will be dwelled in the branch of psychology and regret not having enough resources on my part to give a satisfactory account for. I approach this topic of feelings from a more philosophical and Metaphysical point of view today, and in the next post shall discuss on the limitations of Intuition and feelings. Hopefully by the time we hit on the topic of identity, I may integrate common feelings (those we know of) in greater detail into the ‘concept’ of intuitive being. Meanwhile, as I have re-iterated earlier, any form of comment, criticism and expounding upon this topic is welcomed anytime.

On Intuition, feelings and emotions

Please do refer to ‘On Education, logic and Our Lives - Part 3 for an introduction of Metaphysical Intuition and Feelings.

Indeed, we have covered quite a lot on the topic of logic and education over the past few excerpts. We ended our last discussion on the limitations of logic and an introduction of a new ‘concept’ otherwise known as intuition and feelings. Yes, this topic I am about to address in the following few posts is very hard to explain, owing to the fundamental fact that this topic in essence is supposedly independent of any concept, analysis and definition. Today, after seven days of mulling around attempting to come up with a satisfactory address to the topic, I have decided that well-done or not, the Project still has to go on.

The ‘concepts’ of intuition, feelings and emotions that we are addressing here may be slightly different in terms of definition than the layman’s definition of these words. I presume that the pure essence of the subject I am addressing lies somewhere between these three words. And in the following posts I’ll attempt to explain how such an abstract concept is supposedly to come hand-in-hand with logical analysis (as seen through the eyes of education) to bring meaning and understanding to our world and our lives.

True Intuition is the power or faculty of knowing things without conscious reasoning or empirical knowledge. Pure intuition is the act by which the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. When using only intuition, the truth of the proposition is immediately known right then, the moment it is presented. This is without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning. In common usage, intuitions lead us to believe things without being able to articulate evidence or reasons for those beliefs. Today, we can say that true intuition, as opposed to a logic-based-robotic mind, is only a hypothetical state of mind for us humans. Humans are rational creatures, and rationality requires both logic and intuitive experiences to exist simultaneously.

The human’s best attempt to ‘re-conceptualize’ true intuition lies in feelings. As I have stated before, the pure essence of Intuition, if loosely said, and integrated with little amounts of logic, becomes a more familiar concept of ‘feelings’. Even so, there is still a spectrum of feelings within this faculty of ‘feeling’; those that tend more to true intuition can be classified as what we called ‘gut feelings’, whereas other feelings such as ‘desires’ have slightly more logic to it. In definition, feelings can be defined as sensations, emotions, impressions, desires and intuitions.

An emotion is a term for a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Emotions are subjective experiences, or experienced from an individual point of view. Just as how I have utilized education as a ‘means’ of applying the concept of ‘logic is important’ to our lives, I will attempt to use ‘emotions’ to bring forth the importance of Intuition and Feelings into our lives today.

Now that we have made an attempt to define and ‘conceptualize’ the above, we shall start now on the general introduction of the importance and hindrances of sentiments (a word I have coined to describe feelings, emotions, and in varying degrees, intuition) to our lives as to understanding ourselves and the world.

One of the most controversial aspects of sentiments is the fact that sentiments bring about as much destruction and hindrance to our quest of perfecting knowledge as much as it allows us to understand the world.

So, how do intuition, feelings and emotions come to play on the Moderation Doctrine in allowing us to finding the full truth in our lives?

We require sentiments in nearly every aspect of our lives- whether we are making a choice or decision, whether we like or dislike something or someone, when we desire something, when we socialize (realistically), acquaint, or are in a relationship with other people; sentiments are also present when we are alone, falling into the subcategory of ‘mood’. Even at the most neutral state of mind ‘sentiments’ are present: the very essence of metaphysical intuition (of being); and as according to such doctrines feelings, emotions, sentiments and intuition are all one.

On the previous post, I have given an analogy of Literature and Metaphysical Intuitive Being. I had compared Intuition as being that character himself and logical analysis as all the traits the author had written about the character. The conclusion that we had arrived was the fact that no matter how much the author may wish to expound on the characterization of his character, all of that can never be equivalent to the simple and indivisible feeling we can experience should we be the character himself for an instant.

That is where Sentiments play as an important role to our lives. Logic and analysis may be able to describe the truth, knowledge and structure of our lives, but sentiments is required nevertheless to flesh out by feeling, and being, of our lives and the world around us.

As Arnold Benett has succinctly put it: There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.

Yet and again, Sentiments have always been seen as a ‘stumbling block’ on our quest for knowledge in Technical Education and Philosophy. Philosophy has often been described as first and foremost a discipline of reason, and technical education (as I have iterated over the previous posts) has aimed to make us understand the world via logical knowledge. Hence, emotions have often been neglected or attacked as primitive, dangerous and fundamentally irrational.

After-all, it is predominantly emotions that had led much of the world to war and unrest- that led rise to fanaticism, religious conflicts, and the creation of ‘lunatics’. Fanaticism to what we term as Jihadism in the Muslim world today, Conflicts as to the historical Crusade wars, the major schisms within the church during the 1500-1900s (Catholics and Protestants), and ‘lunatics’ as to people we deem to be irrational or ‘over-religious’.

Addressed in Huxley’s Brave New World, Bertrand Russell’s The Scientific Outlook and the movie Equilibrium, sentiments (and the training of sentiments) are the root cause of human ‘complexes’ in the world. ‘Complexes’ are the fundamental reason why utopia can never be achieved in a certain community, or why there can never be total order in a society.

And henceforth the dream of many philosophers to abolish religion, and henceforth Hitler’s Holocaust, Eugenics and Ten Reich Campaign (unsuccessful, but it aimed to a certain utopia for his community), henceforth the advocating of a life of reason and apathy.

Putting this issue on a much more congenial context, sentiments are pre-requisite for us to socialize, be ‘better’ people through ethics and morals, and ultimately be ourselves throughout. But indulging on sentiments is also the cause of academic failure, being in a neurosis, and being impractical or illogical.

Indeed as an introductory conclusion, we get to define Sentiments, as well as get a glimpse of the strengths and hindrances that Sentiments play in our lives. In the following post I’ll discuss in greater detail the role of Sentiments and Intuition to the lives of our young people today, the dangers of misuse of sentiments when we apply it too practically (or impulsively), as well as its dependence for logic too to complete our realization of our world.

On education, logic and our lives - Part 3

We know that our mainstream education teaches us the logic of life. At first thought, logic seems to be the most important life skill that is imparted from generation to generation. Logical thought allows us to think efficiently, solve complex problems analytically, and understand ourselves & the world around us better. Indeed, most education institutions come handy with a textbook, filled with facts, formulae, and thought processes- each of them an essential tool for our future jobs and lives. Critical thinking is promoted, as it allows the individual to approach problems (including that of life) from an unbiased, logical point of view. This in turn allows the individual to make a higher probability of correct choices made in life in future. In short, logic (a.k.a. the Scientific Method) breaks down complexity, thus allowing us to live our 'complex' lives with relative ease.This is succinctly summarized in the following three points:

1) Be able to think, reason and deal confidently with the future, have courage and conviction in facing adversity

2) Be able to seek, process and apply knowledge

3) Be innovative - have a spirit of continual improvement, a lifelong habit of learning and an enterprising spirit in undertakings

(The Outcomes of Education, Ministry of Education, Singapore)

But are logic and its analysis the only thing we have to learn in life? Indeed not. On deeper thought, we can evidently point out various aspects of life that cannot be fully reasoned out- morality, ethics, values, passion, romance, faith, trust, etc.

It must be made known at this point of time that all of the above-mentioned points have something in common- on face level, the one essence that is evident within all of the examples is the fact that they are all ‘feeling’ based. Some of them may sound more logical i.e. romance, ethics. Yet, others may be totally illogical itself, especially seen within the concepts of values, faith and trust. Indeed, faith has allowed fanatics a ‘reason’ greater than the logic of survival to sacrifice themselves for the ‘most righteous cause’, which at closer analysis, has no logic to it too.

But haven’t we said that logic can explain our lives? Why cannot we logically explain these then? Then and again, do we even have an explanation for the above?Indeed, strictly speaking, we may attempt to break down these topics down using the scientific method to three fundamental subjects of physics chemistry and psychology. Physics would probably attempt to explain how our brains are made ‘alive’ by electron and atomic movement. Chemistry would then pick up from there, and distinct how chemicals react and trigger which receptors within the brain to produce emotions, feelings, memories and tendencies; this in turn would then be analyzed explained logically from psychology and neuroscience. But even so, is this logical explanation itself complete?

I don’t want weasel my way around here, and I definitely do not wish to even try to prove the above three scientific disciplines wrong. But it is at these times I have to make known that the answer is both yes and no at the same time.

Yes, it is completely accurate that the explanation itself, as far as it is concerned, is true.
No, in its strictest definition, elements of the brain are not parts of the mind. This reasoning is Metaphysical.

Metaphysics can be called the fundamental reason why logic can explain the world, but cannot Truly represent it. The fundamental concepts of Metaphysics are actually very simple: it states that the Truth (note that the first letter is capitalized) is actually not fully complete (in the strictest sense of the definition of completeness) by any amount of analysis and logic. Instead, it too requires another element- otherwise known as intuition, to complete the full understanding of the issue.

The pure essence of Intuition, if loosely said, and integrated with little amounts of logic, becomes a more familiar concept of ‘feelings’ that I had attempted to make known. The most intuitive of feelings noted today can be said to be ‘faith’. Henceforth, that is the reason why I had discussed faith, beliefs and religion at quite a decent length in my first part of this project on Truth.

Intuition itself is extremely difficult to learn, for the fundamental reason that it is in essence an essence that cannot be explained by concepts, analogies, facts, or even language. Hence, in a certain way, it has circumvented the logical flow of General Paper, the facts of History and elementary science, and right down to even the representations of the Languages (for even words have associated meanings and thus can be considered too as concepts). Yet intuition is not a ‘concept’ we are too unfamiliar with, our feelings in essence are intuition- our beings are in essence intuition. Minus all the logical analysis, the scientific study, or even the idea of conceptualization itself, life itself is actually one big intuition by itself.

HUH?

I had noted that it is arguable that Literature encompasses elements of feeling and metaphysics. Now, please do consider this:

Consider, again, a character whose adventures are related to me in a novel. The author may multiply the traits of his hero’s character, may make him speak and act as much as he pleases, but all this can never be equivalent to the simple and indivisible feeling which I should experience if I were able, for an instant, to identify myself with the person of the hero himself. (the metaphysical intuition)

Out of that indivisible feeling, as from a spring, all the words, gestures and actions of the man would appear to me to flow naturally. (the intuitive feeling itself)

There would no longer be accidents which, added to the idea I had already formed of the character, continually to enrich that idea, without ever completing it. (which logic attempts to explain)

The character would be given to me all at once, in its entirety; and the thousand incidents which manifest it, instead of adding themselves to the idea and so enriching it, would seem to me on the contrary to detach themselves from it, without however, exhausting it (the idea, or the intuition of me as the character) or impoverishing its essence.

Rephrased from Henri Bergson: An Introduction to Metaphysics.

Literature is an analytical study of the character, and by breaking down the character down to his individual traits, attempt to understand the character himself. However True literary appreciation, as advocated by the subject, is actually a metaphysical event that can never be taught but felt and appreciated.

That is where the logic of mainstream education fails. Not that it fails to explain life fully, but that it cannot present (or in a looser sense represent) life in its entirety that feelings could.

Tying into this point, we now look at other forms of education- What about Art and Music? Sports and Culture? Moral and Religious education? These forms of education are in essence legitimate as far as education is concerned, and upon closer look we find out that they have actually greater elements of intuition, experience, or intellectual sympathy tied into the basic logic of facts and language. To excel in sports requires the sportsman to ‘live’ the sport, and not only to study the techniques of the sport as he might have done in a school. We have to sympathize morality to understand it, and even religion requires an experiential fidiestic belief before God, and his values, may be fully ‘realized’.

That be the fundamental reason why schools are trying to ‘move out of the classroom to the field’ to make students ‘experience’ the knowledge they learn in their textbooks. That be the fundamental reason why a subject of humanities (slightly more intuitive orientated) has to come with science (and vice versa) in the new syllabus of Junior Colleges. (Although the outcome may not be successful at this stage). That be the reason why we ‘feel’ that such education is incomplete and turn pursue other forms of ‘education’, or C.C.A. so as we speak.

In conclusion to this entire topic on Education, Logic and our lives- I have briefly touched on various topics and concepts, which I would state below:

1) The importance of logic to our lives as to understand ourselves and the world.
2) On how mainstream education aims to bring logic and its goodness to our lives (the philosophy of education a.k.a. Logic Eternal)
3) How technicalities (logic now) are important, arise, and yet how it had marred the true philosophy of mainstream education
4) The limits of education bringing only logic to our lives, in light of its aim to make us understand the world.
5) The introduction of Intuition and Feelings (I’ll explain this in the next topic)
6) On how logic and education has to come hand in hand with metaphysical intuition to complete our realization of the world.

The information presented on this topic is incomplete, and I may be unwittingly inaccurate in some of my points. Please do feel free to comment or rectify on this topic without hesitation- and help expound this informal classroom to fully realize the Truth in our lives.

On education, logic and our lives - Part 2

Education does two things: it develops the individual and educates the citizen. (From the Desired Outcomes of Education - Ministry of Education, Singapore)

In the previous post, I have touched on mainstream education, their characteristics, and their aims to inculcate logical thought into our lives. With the analogy of a military school, we are first taught the languages as a medium for logical thought, then filled in with facts and then gradually taught the skills to further deduce other facts, knowledge's and truths. Education ends with specialization- when we now have acquired the fundamental skills and information for general knowledge, finally proceed to apply such skills and knowledge into our specialized fields as evident in the universities and our jobs.

This has been the aim of education society has denoted for us- For us to survive independently, to think for ourselves, and for us to become competent individuals whom would be able join ranks of those in already in research and the workforce to break forth the frontiers of human discovery, knowledge and technology.

Indeed, this aim is not only for ourselves, but also for the community. This is important as we, although unique individuals ourselves, must understand that the community too denotes greatly our sense of identity, which I would discuss further in the later topics of Identity and the Self. But do note that regardless for the individual or the community, the aims of such education was to preserve and augment the student in Knowledge and Truths of the world around him/herself. This is most evident in the introductory page of Science, where Science (Knowledge) is aimed to 'let us know more about the world around us and about ourselves'

Why know so much? Humans generally have given up strength, speed, agility and physical resilience for a stronger and more intelligent brain as they had evolved from primates. In a way we might say that natural evolution has forced us to abandon physical excellence for knowledge, intelligence and logic as a means of survival. Henceforth it is imperative that we have little choice but to follow this general tendency should we wish to exist and excel. Of course you could choose to be a sportsman or a sprinter and excel in life nevertheless, yet we must understand that even these people require years of training for them to achieve such physical standards. For the average us, the casual track-and-field kid in school, or the football player at the street-soccer court after school hours, it is ultimately still our brains we have to develop at the end of the day.

So, at the end of the day, we conclude that education is meant for our personal survival, as a key factor in molding our personal identities, and as a means where we may impart what essential skills we acquire to others for the improvement of the community and other-selves. If we were to equate Truth into this equation, we may very well conclude that education is ultimately part of an attempt into find the Truth of ourselves, and the true meaning of our lives.

Yet, if the true philosophies of education are so noble, why does it not seem anything as I had described in the above paragraphs, today? Today, we hardly get to see education as a means of promoting the individual and the self. Instead, it is more evident that education is reducing the human individual to a 'mindless-slave', where the mundanity of work kills off the creativity it was supposed to impart; where the fear of examinations undermines the underlying essence to achieve knowledge.... In this way, I shall have to blame it on the reason of the overemphasis of 'Technicalities', or what I may categorize as a Logic Now on my four point scale of Moderation.

Like all corporate organizations, it's the development of education that was the key reason for it's destruction. Assuming a hypothetical case of a man named Mr Loh who wanted to start a business selling Mandarin Oranges to natives in Madagascar. His original intentions were good- to allow the natives have the ability to taste the sweet Oranges they would otherwise never be able to find alone. He brings a crate of Oranges of his boat on shore and sells it cheap to the first group of natives he meets. He soon finds out that there are many more natives to help; therefore he got together other associates, with some natives, to go back to china to get more oranges.

As time grew by, he found out that he could not possibly personally ensure that all the natives (now a big number) have the same satisfaction of tasting the oranges, so he comes up with systems and hires quality controllers to ensure that the natives get the best orange. He then assembles other teams of orange givers, and giving them full autonomy over the oranges, sends them to other parts of the island. This situation extrapolates- he soon makes cash, and he soon hires a accountant and a consultant to finance his business. He starts paying his workers money, and his workers plainly dish out oranges to the natives (with a hell lot of quality checks) for the sake of salary. In the end of the day, it can still be loosely said that Mr Loh stills gives oranges to the natives of Madagascar, but is the original essence of goodwill still present today?

Sadly, we can see that the 'essence' of it has been greatly undermined by the technicalities of his orange-giving business. Indeed, this hypothetical scenario may sound amusing to us, but comparing the original intention of orange-giving to the original philosophy of education, and both outcomes at the end of the day (today), it is very evident how the aims of education have been 'mutated' from that of self augmentation to that of self diminishment.

Exams upon exams, syllabus after syllabus- topics after topics, do we ever stop once to consider the true philosophy (or objective outcomes) of the subjects and topics we have mindlessly memorized for our examinations? Are we able to stop, admist the hectic preparations of examination, to see the true reason why such 'quality checks' are in place in the very first place? Are we still be able to see through, at the end of the day, that education is actually meant for our well-being rather than our personal destruction?

Indeed it's really hard to see this, given the warp-ness of society and the competition it entails. But nevertheless it never hurts to understand the true philosophy of education especially when our identities be weary after a hectic day's work.

There is a certain controversy in philosophy, that whether philosophers (who are actually no more than people who think actively) are born or are they made. It turn out that actually everybody are born philosopher when they were children (as evident in their innate curiosity for knowledge), but what determines a respectable philosopher from another 'ordinary' man is the ability of this 'interest in knowledge' to not be killed through the technicalities of formal education and social pressure. Bearing this in mind, perhaps now with the true aims of education made light to our lives, can we appreciate education as it is truly meant to be. And by this, be truly great- to no one, to no society, to no convention, examination or norms- but ultimately ourselves and those we love most.

On education, logic and our lives.

What is Logic?

Thats to cheem, dude- personally, I do not understand how logic works in essence. Moreover, I do not want to address logic (see aims of project RN). Instead I want to focus more about the applications of logic to our lives.

So, okay.... how is logic essential to us?

I can give more reasons for this question- but do I really wish to explain every question I raise? Will it change the convictions of many to just hear reason upon reason? Or would more be convinced via an example (which we are al familiar with) that points out more successfully the essence of the above question? I believe the latter would suffice for now, and I'll reserve my arguments for other more dire topics on another day and time.

Alright then. let us look at our education. So, what are the aims of education?

Before I may address this topic, let us go back down memory lane to see a history of subjects that were made available to us during our course of education:

Pri 1 : English, Mother Tongue, Mathematics
Pri 3 : + Science
Pri 4 : + Social Studies
Sec 1 : + History, + Geography, + Literature, + D&T / Home Econs,
Sec 3 : Science sub-divides to Phy, Chem and Bio. Maths sub-divides into E Maths and A Maths

Available subjects for O level:
The languages- English, Mother Tongue, Higher M.T.
The Mathematics- E maths, A maths (optional)
The Sciences- Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (combined sciences)
The Humanities- Geography, History, Literature, Social Studies
The Arts- Music, Art, etc.

Choice of ITE, Polytechnic or Junior College after Ordinary Levels

ITE : Essential technical skills
Poly : Application and specialization in course of course (focus more on Project Work, practicals, coursework etc)
J.C. : + General Paper, + Econs, general choice between Arts or Science (focus more on core syllabus and raw knowledge)

Subjects tested for Advanced level:
-Mother Tongue (for those whom did not take H.M.T. during O levels)
-General Paper
-Mathematics or Economics
-2 or 3 Subjects on discipline level (either Humanities or Science)

University admission,

From poly : Higher specialization (diploma to degree in course of choice)
From JC : Application of higher knowledge onto relevant course of choice.



The above plan of education does not come about without reason. It is notable that when we were in primary school, the first subjects were not that of Science, Humanities, or Arts. Instead, the three primary subjects were on Language and Mathematics. Science was introduced as a subject only during primary three after two years of foundational grounding of the languages. Social studies, the first humanities subject, was only first introduced in primary four. Literature and other mainstream humanities subjects was only studied in sec 1 and phy, chem and bio only came around during sec 3. General paper only arrived on the scene in J1, 10 years after the initial introduction of education to the individual.

Why?

If we were to consider the nature of all the subjects as listed above, we would find out soon that all of them beyond science requires logical thinking and reasoning to varying degrees. As the subject gets introduced later, the higher was it's need and relation to logical thinking and analysis. Let us consider a few subjects in turn to see how they are related logic, and ultimately knowledge and truth.


1) Science and all it's relevant subjects: 'Science' would hardly be called science if it were to be studied in absence of logic (see philosophy of science). Science studied during the earlier years (pri 3- sec 2) was a general collection initially, with intention for students to memorize raw scientific facts. However, Science sub-divides into three primary subjects from Sec 3 onwards (namely phy, chem and bio) where we learnt to understand scientific concepts from mathematical calculation or logical deduction. It is notable to take note that while the methods of science may change over time, the philosophy of Science as a subject never changes- and in accordance to the introductory page of Primary Science 3 Second Edition, we get the following:

What is Science about?

In science we learn to look at things, ask questions and try to answer them. We get to know more about the world around us and about ourselves.

2) Social studies/ History: one of the most important concepts of Truth learnt in both subjects is evident when a student attempts a source-based question. Note that when such questions are attempted, various skills were accessed to identify aspects such as credibility, cross-referencing, biasness, agenda and logic flow. Do note that credibility and biasness of a source is closely related to subjectivity of Truth, and the basic skill of cross-referencing actually mirrors the correspondence theory of Truth.

3) Literature: The three basic skills of literature are 1. Reading the lines (reading for platonic content) 2. Reading between the lines (reading for inference) and 3. Reading beyond the lines (reading for meaning). As students attempt to analyse a given text, they are actually sub-consciously trained in applying skills of logical deduction and analysis.

4) General Paper: One of the frontiers of philosophy, where questions raised were actually related to the world in broad topics such as Science, Religion, Morality, Ethics, Nature, Nurture, Crime, War, Sports, Culture, Politics. Note that while certain topics may seem eternal (logic eternal) i.e. Science and Religion, Nature vs. Nurture, Free-will vs Determinism etc. Others remained more focused on the world today and are applicable to youths today (logic now) ie. Culture, Sports, Economy, Education etc.


After careful analysis of the subjects taught, the skills learnt, and the 'coincidental' timings for for the introduction of each subject- it is evident that such education was carefully planned out for. To first be able to assimilate the languages as a medium for thought, then invoke logic- first via facts and 'knowledge'; and then allow the student to slowly logically deduce 'truths' as in Lit, Phy, Chem, Bio and History. Finally, G.P. was imposed to perfect the logical reasoning and apply such logical skills to the real world itself, namely via addressing real world issues and topic currently under debate.

For this you may take education as a form of military school: to start afresh with every new batch of recruits, teach them how to walk (languages), present them their weapons (facts), then teach them how to fire their weapons on mock targets (sec school), bring them for simulation courses (G.P.) and finally from them bring them to the real battlefield when their knowledge is tested real time on the subjects, and jobs they will specialize in their future.

This has been the aim of our education. To prepare us for the war of Knowledge and Truth.

Do note that mainstream education entails logic. Nearly every subject discussed above entails some degree of logic, although it may be argued that Literature encompasses elements of Feeling and Metaphysics (which I will dwell next time). The education can thus be a vantage point where we may easily see how logic is essential to our lives; via education how our fathers try to inculcate logic to us, and by education how it prepares us for the future.

In conclusion, logic is essential in our lives. I have not given an objective answer why it is important, but I believe that would not be necessary. By choosing to touch on the aims of education I have already shown you it's significance more clearly than any amount of reasoning or arguments- on how it makes us more knowledgeable people, how it help us survive in the future (jobs), and ultimately how it help us live on as human beings from generation to generation without death or extinction.

The Moderation Doctrine (An Introduction)

Note: The following posts on this blog will be one of complete speculation, personal reasoning, and feelings. The information presented may not be completely accurate or reliable. Please do be
understanding if my views differ from your personal convictions.

PS: I assure you guys that the topic would no longer be as cheem as those posts about the Truth Theory, so please sit back, relax, and enjoy the words as they come. LOL

Project Re-affirmation is a project aimed to refine the understanding of Truth, not only as a concept of it's own, but more about it's significance and application to our personal lives. When I had set up this project on the 21st December 2008- it's fundamental objective was to seek out my true identity and the 'true' way of life to live so that I may not commit again to the mistakes I had once made. Hence, it is in this respect that Project RN (T) is similar to project C2.

-

We should be very familiar to the following phrases / questions:
-

-Why is the world so Materialistic?

-People are just so superficial, why so?

-Why do teenagers today suffer from peer pressure and addictions?

-Why study? And for what am I studying?

-True friends are very hard to get.

-True love is even harder to find.

-Then again, what is true love?

-A or B, what should I choose? How should I even start considering?

-Where is the relevance of God in Today's world?

-Why do some people think so cheem-ly? They must be crazy.

-Why does no one seem to understand me?

-

and especially...

-

-How much can you say its true that there are atoms in the desk? Just because some textbook or teacher tells you so? Do you actually go to the Science Laboratory and put it under the microscope the experience it for yourself? ( Fahy again...LOL)

-

I am sure that in some point of time, at least one of the above mentioned phrases had once occurred in your mind. I do not wish to dwell deeper into the reasons that may cause to think as such, but I am positive that at that point of time everyone had wished then they had a full explanation on these topics. Perhaps we may formulated a sort of reason to some of the 'issues' already, and perhaps there are still questions we may never find an answer to, the reason being that the Truth to these questions are either obscured or difficult to reason out.

-

Then and again, do these questions even have a true answer to it? Yes I do believe so. The answer may be an objective statement or a subjective stand; but recalling Part 1 on "Does Truth Exist?", we know that be it objective or subjective, it is also True.

-

Part 1 has also concluded that there are two methods in refining Truth. Advocated by the philosophies of Science and Religion, the two fundamental methods are Logic and Feelings (Beliefs), and it is by the integration of both (via compatibilism or like a GP argumentative essay) that we may contrast and compliment out a clearer picture at the end of the day.

It should be made known at this point that these two methods can be used to at least address the 'Truth' of the above topics.

-

The Moderation Doctrine is not a clear cut method in obtaining a true answer for such questions about our lives. I believe that if it were that simple many of us would not have been 'victims' to the world today (yet of course there are other reasons, of which I'll explain in the following posts). The Moderation Doctrine is actually an approach to life, based on the Theories formulated on the optimal way for seeking out the 'Truth'. As stated, the two fundamental methods are Logic and Feeling; naturally, the Moderation Doctrine FIRST moderates itself between these two methods.

-

Let us assume there is a Truth to life . Putting this concept on a religious aspect, do allow me to quote the Bible- Jesus himself has said: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". In this respect, he has already stated that there is indeed a Truth to everything, and since He is all three at the same time it's imperative that all three are one. In light of this, you may equate the "Way" as the Moderation Doctrine, the "Truth" as the Truth we had discussed in part 1, and the 'Life" not only as life in general, but also an an orientation of the Truth towards goodness (life) as opposing to evil (death).

-

Putting the concept on a scientific analysis on the other hand- if Science assumes Truth Universally; then Life, being a subset of this 'universe', is therefore subjected to the same assumption of Truth before any form of logical reason may apply. Hence to assume the existence of Truth would have already assumed a Truth to life. I personally hope we do not have issues on this at this point of time, but in case we really do, we may discuss this out in the near future.

-

Now, how are we going to find that True way to live life to the 'best?' How has the world been living their lives? Based on the above mentioned topics, we can see that much of the world we see today is materialistic and superficial. People study to pass examinations, and pass examinations to secure high paying jobs in the future. There may be a lot of conversations between friends, but on closer analysis we find that there is no depth beneath the superficiality of 'Hies' and 'Byes'- leading to politics, backstabbing, and ultimately regret. The 'Love propagated by the mass media focuses greatly on romance and the human needs (especially when Love and sex seem to come hand-in-hand), but other aspects of a loving relationship, such as commitment and trust seem to be lacking severely.

-

Note that these attitudes of the world are very superficial or 'here and now'. There is both logic (as to education) and Feeling (as to love) to the actions of the world today, but we hardly take that and call it the 'True Way' of living. This now brings forth a new concept- that there is another element, opposing to the 'Now' attitude much of the world today, that is supposed to be ingrained to 'balance' out life, what is that concept? I'll term that concept as 'Eternal'

-

Do note that most of us consider Religion and God to be Eternal. Feelings (devoted to one's religion and God) tend to more 'eternal based' and can be easily termed as 'Values'. Such of these eternal feelings include values such as 'Cherish', 'Share', 'Love' (aha- we know this love is diff. fr the love you'll give your girlfriend), and especially 'trust' (Belief).

-

On the other hand, logic too has an 'eternal' perspective to it. Known today as 'cheem stuff' or 'thinking about unsolvable issues' by many, philosophy has been seeked over generations by many and it's fundamental concepts had never seemed to change whether it is studied today or a hundred years ago. (Truth is one of the concepts anyway, and that's the actual reason why some people say that the last topic is cheem).

-

In the end of the day, we get four basic grounds:

'Logic Now' - a.k.a. Practicality, Materialism (negative).

'Logic Eternal' - a.k.a. Philosophy, 'Cheem stuff' (by some, alt. the definition of cheem differs).

'Feeling Now' - a.k.a. The feelings we feel when we are happy or sad or in love.

'Feeling Eternal' - a.k.a. Belief, Trust, and most of the religious/moral values we know today.

-

Truth Theory had reasoned that there ought to be a balance between Logic and Feelings. It is intuition to balance ourselves between the 'Now' and 'Eternal' to ensure that we may not be too Materialistic or 'out of phase' with the world. The Moderation Doctrine aims to find a balance between the Four.

-

Of course there are other concepts not addressed in this method of seeking the Truth in life. The most noteworthy being the concept of Good and Evil, which I'll attempt to address in the future. I really do not intend to push this Moderation Doctrine under your noses and make you accept my theories, and I am more than willing to hear you out should you have another model of explaining the world today. But please do consider this more as an alternative method in attempt to explain and straighten life as it is; and by applying it directly to our selves, seek out the Truth of Truth in a much more comprehensible and practical light.