On Identity - the qualitative consciousness

Coincidently, there was a little discussion a few days ago on the topic of Self-Identity that I had got to hear about. One of the more notable comments made was the concept that Identity is everything that makes you. Although it may seem to some as being over generalized and ambiguous, but nevertheless it is admit-able that the essence of that statement is true in its own respect.

Every new truth (concept) we learn from the world, every thought and decision that influences us to feel the way we are, every intuitive feeling we experience that we associate a logical explanation for, and every of the above which we had committed to memory. Every memory and their corresponding reactions that accumulates to form tendencies and traits, and every tendency and trait to that web of personality; every bit of personality that manifests itself in all our actions (and reactions) to form our behavior, and ultimately every bit of these that all comes together that makes us. Some of these we are able to exert some form of control at will, while others we tend to be less aware or find difficult to change. That is the formation of our psychological identity, or our conscious and subconscious self.

Of course I do not mean that the above chain of processes is the definite construct of Identity from the rudimentary basics of thoughts and feelings, since the human psyche is interdependent and complex. As much as thoughts and feelings coming together in experience to form memories and tendencies, memories and tendencies can in turn affect every subsequent thought and feeling that the individual experiences. But if I were to make analogous the entire process to that of making Kachang-Puteh, what we had discussed in the previous faculty (on logic, intuition, material and ideal) are the ingredients of Kachang-Puteh , and it doesn’t really matter whether you add the green peas before you add the peanuts, or whether it’s the other way around. Both way, we are all a characteristic blend of all four; and into a personalized concoction of personality we all be.

Now, if I were to be given the liberty to expand a little more along the analogy, we will inevitably find out that some Kachang-Puteh are tastier than others. Some will have more nuts than peas, and some will have more peas than nuts, and some will have peanuts and no more of either. And if we were to dwell deeper into the individual components, we find out that some Kachang-Puteh have better tasting peas, nuts and peanuts than others. Now, indeed the above sentences may sound lighthearted; but if were to still compare Kachang-Puteh to our Individualities, what are we leading to today?

That is to the concepts of imbalance and identity awareness. In my previous post on the MBTI and the previous faculty on the Moderation Doctrine (The Balance), I have already concluded an objective ‘better’ of integration of the four. Today, I will dwell more closely upon the second concept of identity awareness- on how it determines the quality of consciousness of the individual, and how does it allow us to find the ‘living best’ by making us be the ‘best’ of ourselves.

Some of us may be aware to the theories of Erik Erikson. Erik was a Neo-Freudian, and he had elaborated Freud’s theories of Psychosexual Development and of the Ego (in which we have made certain note of in the previous discussion). Much of his life was dedicated to the field of psychology, especially regarding the identity and the self. He was most famous for his theory of the personality, where he had developed his eight stages of Psychosocial Development (or the development of the identity). Erikson believed that the development of a strong ego identity, along with the proper integration into a stable society and culture, lead to a stronger sense of identity in general. Accordingly, a deficiency in either of these factors may increase the chance of an identity crisis or confusion.

(see above table for more information)


Of course the majority of us are already familiar to the concepts of Trust, Mistrust, Autonomy, Shame, Doubt, Industry and Inferiority. But even so, there are many around us that are still grappling with the concepts of Identity, Intimacy, Generativity and Ego Integrity. Do note that even some people are still grappling with concepts such as Trust, Autonomy and Initiative, so as we see of the paranoid, those with little confidence or the role-confused. After all, the age group only denotes the approximate timings for an individual to face the following eight identity crises. In other words, we all may have faced the following eight problems at different points of our lives; and based on our successes and failures, we all may be at different stages of the Identity Development.

Indeed, the previous faculty states that there is an objective better identity, via the integration of logic and intuition. But putting it all together today, we get to ask ourselves this fundamental question: at what logic and what intuitive feeling do we build our identities upon? We know that trust requires logic and intuition, and so is with the sense of Will, and Wisdom. In fact, all of the above requires some form of integration of logic and intuition in both materialistic and idealistic aspects (see Generativity and Ideology). But from the previous faculty of discussions we know that even logic and intuition, both material and ideal, are amoral and have their own strengths and weaknesses. And as much as having a moderation of logical thought and experiences that promotes Trust there is also a blend for Mistrust. The same applies to the other stages.

This is of course, only valid when we assume a Metaphysical Objectivism to the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

If we were to summarize the above eight stages into two broad and distinct categories, we find out that our identities are actually definable as the level of awareness, and commitment of us towards ‘ourselves’. As succinctly stated:
An individual's sense of identity is determined in large part by the explorations and commitments that he or she makes regarding certain personal and social traits. It follows that the core of the research in this paradigm investigates the degrees to which a person has made certain explorations, and the degree to which he or she displays a commitment to those explorations.

A person may display either relative weakness or relative strength in terms of both exploration and commitments. When assigned categories, four possible permutations result: identity diffusion, identity foreclosure, identity moratorium, and identity achievement. Diffusion is when a person lacks both exploration in life and interest in committing even to those unchosen roles that he or she occupies. Foreclosure is when a person has not chosen extensively in the past, but seems willing to commit to some relevant values, goals, or roles in the future. Moratorium is when a person displays a kind of flightiness, ready to make choices but unable to commit to them. Finally, achievement is when a person makes identity choices and commits to them.

This is represented in James Marcia paradigm of Erikson’s work in the field of identity.

The central idea of every self-help book lies in the question if we are aware of our current selves and the perpetual better that we all may be. Indeed, through the previous posts on the identity, we have discusses (and seen) the different components that make up our identity. We have understood what we can and cannot change of ourselves. We get to know more about our conscious selves, and on how it could be made better. Finally, we get to understand that what affects our conscious identity- not only by the moderation of the four (see MBTI), but also by the objective quality of these fundamentals.

Of course we round up this topic of personal identity on the quote that we cannot change each other overnight, and from here I reiterate that I do not intend to change any of our current identities with whatever I have spoken insofar. After all, I can never fully understand the extent of your full identities (see metaphysical intuition); moreover, I do not have a right of judgment (see subjectivism) since I too am in search of my personal identity. In the next post, I will be covering a little on social identity and how society affects our sense of being; but meanwhile- I hope that with at least a basic knowledge of ourselves we can begin to grasp at this infinitely complex concept of living the ‘living best’.

On Identity - What Makes Our Identity?

Do allow me to ask you a question today- who are you?

Without a doubt many people would start off by telling their names. This is indeed a natural reflex, because their name, like any other personal names, identifies a specific unique and identifiable individual person.

Okay…. But still, who are you?

Now, some people would start to get stumped from this second comment. Some would re-iterate that they are what their names are, and many people would start to associate related concepts to the concept of their individuality- I am eighteen, I am a female, I study at National University Singapore, I am single, I live in Ang Mo Kio, my family is…… (Grin)

Biologists on the other hand, would be ranting off a completely different script. They would touch on genes, on how it is exclusively different to the individual, and how they complex to form the individual DNA. They would then touch on cells- how cells come together and complexes, with each cell having that specific DNA code, to form the individual himself. And since every bit of the person is made by atoms that are somehow slightly differently structured (due to genetics), henceforth every body (literal) is individual.

Now, we know that this is an association of logical concepts. We associate more familiar concepts such as eighteen, female, NUS, single, Ang Mo Kio, and family, to slowly piece together the more complex conceptual being of the individual on top of her name. Similarly, we too associate the concepts of genes, particular DNA structures, cells and bodies to re-construct the concept of the body. Indeed, they could keep ranting off details and associative concepts, and they may be correct in representing the individual. But as Henri Bergson has stated before, just how Ang Mo Kio can never be a part of you, and how that particular brain can never be that individual mind, these concepts can never truly represent the actual thing itself.

So, who are you? Then and again, what makes the ‘you’ that you have associate yourself to be all this time, actually you?

From the previous posts, we have concluded that the only method of answering this question lies within the faculty of Intuition and Intellectual Sympathy. I can never be for a moment, you- and hence theoretically I can never get the full truth to the answer. But now, there is only one person who could answer this question fully and truthfully. I don’t mean to sound like an overzealous author of some self-help book, but that person is you (or the individual herself). In other words, the question on personal identity can be answered by no one but only the individual.

Note that concept of self-identity is a very complex topic. Generally speaking, the fundamental premise of Personal Identity lies in the concept of Personal Continuity, or the conditions under which person at one time is the same person at another time. Personal Continuity ensures that the quality of the mind are consistent from movement to the next, generally regarded to include self awareness, sentience, sapience (wisdom-ic epistemological judgment), and perception. Note that all four aspects require an integrated form of logic and intuition, especially sapience and perception- which concepts have been touched on in the previous post of the MBTI.

From there, it forms the conscious conscience. The conscience is the repeated self-identification of oneself, or the self-identification of one’s personality through time. Some philosophers may believe that consciousness is the primary form of identity of human beings; as Locke argues that Self-identity is not founded on the body substance as the body may change while the person remains the same. Take for example a prince's mind which enters the body of a cobbler: to all exterior eyes, the cobbler would remain a cobbler. But to the prince himself, the cobbler would be himself, as he would be conscious of the prince's thoughts and acts, and not those of the cobbler. A prince's consciousness in a cobbler's body: thus the cobbler is, in fact, a prince.

Now, while this argument is appealing in a cognitive context, many people have thought that such disregard for the biology of the individual was a fallible assumption. Biologists (see above) have given a definition of a human as a biological organism and have asserted that a psychological relation is not fully necessary for Personal Continuity. As Eric Olson has asserted, personal identity too lies in life-sustaining processes. After all, would you still be you if you were to be reduced to the mind of a brain floating in a glass jar kept alive by artificial means?

Now we get to see a relationship between the biologist’s script and our conventional script. Grandly known as the mind-body problem, it concerns the explanation of relations that exist between the mental processes, and bodily states. Indeed, this topic touches once more on the issues of biological determinism and free will- in this context, when the non-material mind can influence a material body.

Of course this project does not aim for us to modify our biology. As our biological make-up is very much determined by nature and the logical construct of our genetics, it would be near-impossible (although probable in a utopia via eugenics) to seek the objective ‘living best’ directly from the objective truth of the best ‘biology’. From here, we shall assume the existence of a free will, or at least a possibility for the mind to at least assert an influence on the body. We would dwell in greater detail on the consciousness of the individual, and from there construct the individuality of the individual.

Consciousness now is a term often used in everyday speech to describe being awake and aware- responsive to the environment. But in more philosophical and scientific discussion, as a more related to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way that they distinguish clearly between themselves and all other things. Consciousness entails self-awareness, and they involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, memories, and dreams.

The conscious mind would then subdivide into two different forms of consciousness; namely known as phenomenal consciousness (P- consciousness) and access consciousness (A- consciousness). P-consciousness would simply be the metaphysical intuitive experience- as according to Wikipedia, it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia. On the other hand, A-consciousness would be the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and control of behavior. Note that P-consciousness is very metaphysical (ontological) while A-consciousness is one that is more logic dependent.

The integration of both types of consciousness would of course piece together the conscious self; but now that we have addressed the metaphysical and logical aspects of consciousness, we have inadvertently alluded to the concept of the rational mind, or the seat of the assumption why do we consider why humans in general are identifiable to the concept of rationality. Indeed, we have touched many a times that logic and feeling are essential for the rational being of ourselves, but I have always yet to give a satisfactory derivation of this assumption. We are rational because we are conscious, and consciousness entails both metaphysical and logical faculties.

But do note that our identities are not completely based at the very point of time when we are conscious and aware of ourselves. Dreams are particular to the identity of the individual, and so are memories, but both of them are independent of the conscious mind. We dream when we are actually asleep (or unconscious), and our memories and moods transcend the ‘now’ of conscious reactions to include past experiences and thoughts that ‘just flared up again somehow during the heat of the moment’. How can those be addressed by the concepts of consciousness and biology which we have touched on the past two pages?

Sigmund Freud believed that active-consciousness (both P-consciousness and A-consciousness) was not truly accountable for all conscious behavior and thought. He believed that there was one more aspect, namely the unconscious mind that was lacking. His unconscious mind was not one independent of the conscious mind, but one more of sub-consciousness and pre-consciousness. From there he had developed theories on repressed memories, and explained background tendencies of many individuals- including The Psychosexual Development (the jealous phallus), the Id, Ego, and Super-ego; and The Life and Death Drives.

Of most the noteworthy should be the concept of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego. Unlike convention, the ego is defined as the personality structure which included defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive. It is a balance of the id and the Super ego- which refers to the impulsive (basic drives) and the egoistic ideals. In a very crude form it may take after the concepts of the Material and the Ideal; Sigmund believed that everybody possesses a characteristic ego, and this ego is the balance of their impulses and ideals.

There are a lot of other things to discuss about the theories of Sigmund Freud, but they require a lot of background knowledge and association. Unfortunately, we can hardly do his works justice if we were to summarize such complex concepts into a couple of paragraphs, I would thus encourage all readers to undertake their own further reading into his theories to understand how the unconscious (or subconscious) comes into play to form our Identities.

Biology, consciousness, and unconsciousness- The biological aspect (I re-iterate) we will not be touching much in great in detail, the un-conscious mind and the conscious mind very dependent on thoughts and experiences. These are the three major bases that form up our personal identities, and from there grows most thoughts, feelings, moods, tendencies, memories, and dreams. We can attempt to multiply and explain all of the above (aspects?) covered today the next time someone asks us who we are to infinity, or we could integrate all of the above to a metaphysical intuition of our personal lives that no one but us can understand- either way, this is us: our selves, and our personal identities that is unique to no one but ourselves.

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.