| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  High THC Strains  All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck  Bulk Substrate  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Rahz Alive Again    Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
So you're okay with the propositions. You are substituting words due to your concerns about misuse, but they are still only semantic substitutions.
I appreciate the distinctions you make and will keep them in mind going forward, but I don't see myself substituting "sticktoitiveness" for willpower. For that matter, the additional clarity we've developed here wasn't strictly necessary for the framework to begin with. There was originally no mention of willpower at all, but I think some level of clarity to address potential misuse does deserve mention. There is the rest of the framework to consider. Philosophy consists of more than the question of free will. The current framework will need to be revised eventually to provide more logic and clarity toward what constitutes a good and what is meant by flourishing. That was my expectation about the parts of the philosophy that would be stress tested. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
 Cory Duchesne   Registered: 10/05/16  Posts: 2,818 Loc: Acadia / Mi'Kma'Ki Last seen: 26 minutes, 52 seconds |
| ||||||
|
I'm just going to throw this in here,
"But what, if the inferior and neglected function expresses the will of God?" - Carl Jung and Ostrowski, pg. 25. There are superior and inferior functions of the human being and group. Both children and adults can be impulsively, impatiently both whining and violent. Adults often have to look more objectively and less willfully at what is happening when there is a conflict, rushing, rash or overly snappy behavior or speech. 
Edited by Cory Duchesne (09/21/26 04:05 PM)
| |||||||
|
Cory Duchesne Registered: 10/05/16 Posts: 2,818 Loc: Acadia / Mi'Kma'Ki Last seen: 26 minutes, 52 seconds |
| ||||||
|
“Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.”
― Carl Gustav Jung A Baby Permanently Disabled by Abuse (Special Books by Special Kids):
| |||||||
|
redgreenvines Kaptain Obvious 👀  Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 47,168 |
| ||||||
that is all very fine, but I am really in a muddle about how to handle decide and decisions - these are the much more widely considered aspects of free will that need new ways of being represented as expressions of contextual disposition, rather than as top down expressions of will. I guess I need to find a way of bringing contextual disposition more forward, maybe as a representation of presence, in a world where changes capture our awareness. --------------------  _ 
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
Janus says: I think there's something here that fits Integrative Tension rather well. I wouldn't necessarily identify “inferior” functions as bad functions. A capacity can be legitimate while its present expression is immature, excessive, or poorly integrated.
Aggression is an easy example. The capacity for aggression can be a good—we sometimes need to defend ourselves, establish boundaries, protect someone else, or forcefully resist something harmful. But whining, violence, rashness, or snapping at someone can be dysfunctional expressions of pressures that aren't themselves necessarily illegitimate. That's also how I'd read the interesting part of Jung's question without needing the theological premise. What we call an inferior or troublesome function may contain something that shouldn't simply be suppressed. The question becomes what legitimate capacity or pressure is being expressed, what other goods constrain it, and what a more integrated expression would look like. In that sense maturity isn't the elimination of the troublesome parts of ourselves. It's partly their development and integration into a person increasingly capable of responding to the whole situation rather than being governed by whichever pressure is presently loudest. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
redgreenvines Kaptain Obvious 👀 Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 47,168 |
| ||||||
|
Governed?
Hmm.. Awareness follows changes in context Contextual perception follows that awareness. Which perception triggered behavior comes out depends upon recency (STM) favouring behaviour that supports the task at hand. Not sure about the maturity issue, but maturity can't be faked. Usually it's about handling responsibility -------------------- _
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
Janus says: “Governed” wasn't intended to imply an executive controller. I meant something closer to being dominated by whichever pressure is presently strongest or most immediate.
Your account in terms of awareness, contextual perception and recency can fit that. If accumulated experience and recent activity make some responses more accessible than others, then development can change which responses tend to become expressed under similar conditions. Nothing extra has to step in and issue commands. On maturity, I agree that it can't simply be performed into existence. I would treat maturity as a person-level description of developed organization rather than a separate capacity. Handling responsibility is a good example: experience can make consequences, obligations, other people, and longer time horizons increasingly consequential in how someone responds. So the child who reacts immediately to frustration and the adult who notices the same frustration but responds differently needn't differ because the adult possesses a special faculty called Maturity. The adult may simply have a more developed organization of experience, habits, responsibilities, and contextual associations. From an Integrative Tension perspective, that's enough. Maturity would involve increasingly differentiated and context-appropriate expression of capacities, not suppression of whatever we call “inferior” functions. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
redgreenvines Kaptain Obvious 👀 Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 47,168 |
| ||||||
|
however louder is not the major player among signals that divert awareness
the key is change, sensed change, or ideational shift as well, both are what prevent contextual content from fading into the background. -------------------- _
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
No issue there. It's a minor correction.
Regarding the earlier conversation, I've tried to make the point that metaphysics aren't central to the philosophy's functionality. The main reason will appears in the framework is to constrain transformative agency rather than to establish some substantial entity or faculty that you would fundamentally reject. "Willpower" communicates nothing special to the framework. Will is perfectly acceptable in ordinary usage such as, "Karen has the will to go the distance," meaning that she has the determination or persistence to continue, but that should be understood in context. From 1.1, before Janus: Will — Attempting to change reality where change is possible. That was already enough for the framework's purposes. I don't see a need to change the ordinary language, although the noun phrase “having the will” isn't likely to come up often in a Janus response and isn't how I would naturally phrase things myself. Janus adds: IT permits ordinary person-level talk of will, but its philosophical interest lies mainly in constraining transformative agency by reality, limits, consequences, and other goods. It neither requires nor develops a substantial metaphysics of Will. So, a primary issue is that the framework should be concise. While certain aspects of colloquial use of terms could have a place in exposition that in written in addition to the framework, I don't want to clutter the framework with defensive clarifications. It's been a long time since I conflated will with free will. In so much as I have defended the use of will, it's in respect to a distinction that's worth making rather than seeing value in trying to change common language use. Janus adds: The framework should contain only the distinctions necessary for the philosophy to function. Exposition may defend, qualify, or historically contextualize the language when necessary. That means the framework needn't explain why noun will is an abstract noun, why it doesn't imply a homunculus, how it differs from libertarian free will, why willpower has cultural baggage, or how neuroscience might implement volitional behavior. Those are worthwhile explanatory matters, but they're responses to possible misunderstandings, not structural requirements of IT. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
redgreenvines Kaptain Obvious 👀 Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 47,168 |
| ||||||
|
so far so good
-------------------- _
| |||||||
|
Soothfast Square Peg  Registered: 07/10/18 Posts: 286 |
| ||||||
|
Can an information processing system constructed from a finite number of parts be capable of non-algorithmic reasoning, given that the system has a finite lifespan and exists in a closed physical domain that itself consists of a finite amount of matter and energy?
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
Janus says: If the system has a finite lifespan and only a finite number of physically distinguishable informational states, then whatever sequence of internal states and outputs it actually produces can in principle be represented algorithmically. That doesn't mean the representation would be remotely practical to construct or useful for understanding the system; only that finitude by itself doesn't seem to establish non-algorithmic reasoning.
The question reopens if the physics itself contains something genuinely noncomputable, such as infinite informational precision or noncomputable dynamics. But in that case the non-algorithmicity would be supplied by the physical substrate, not merely by the complexity of the reasoning system. I would also distinguish representation from reality here. A finite formal description can model relations among states, transitions, feedback and changing conditions, but the fact that a living system can be represented that way does not mean the living system is fundamentally identical to the representation. The categories and variables in a model are abstractions we use to track patterned relations within a more complicated organized reality. From the perspective of Integrative Tension, even if the underlying physical processes are entirely algorithmic, person-level reasoning doesn't thereby become unreal or dispensable. A finite physical system can sustain higher-order organization through time, and properties become meaningful at the level of that organized whole that are not properties of any isolated component. So there are really two questions here: Is the underlying process algorithmic? That's primarily a question for computation, physics and neuroscience. What does an algorithmic implementation imply about reasoning as a person-level phenomenon? There I think the answer is: much less than is sometimes assumed. A complete mechanistic account may explain how reasoning is constituted without exhausting what can truthfully be said about the organized system that reasons. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
redgreenvines Kaptain Obvious 👀 Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 47,168 |
| ||||||
I think that if a finite machine is set up to simulate non-algorithmic reasoning based upon associative memory retention, and familiarity based associative perceptive reflexes, the way our brains are arranged, then that finite machine will perform quite well, over a limited life span. For example our brains have about 10 billion primary cortical neurons and about 10,000 interconnections for each one of them, so represents pretty much a fixed number. Some of us go for more than 100 years and can still carry on meaningful dialog, and have enjoyable experiences. The closing of a physical domain may be a limiting factor both on the nature of what it learns, and how long it lives. what is this question really about? I do not really get Janus's answer, but maybe Janus got the meaning of the question better than me. edit: a realistic simulation should be on a massively parallel machine, eg. my JavaScript browser simulation which only has 90000 neurons (and 5000 branches per) begins to slow down as the number of pictures it learns increases, which increases the number of axon branches with spines already formed on them. It does not run out of branches, but dealing with those that need to be considered in each moment becomes harder and harder for a linear von-neuman based computer simulation as the number of memory engrams increase. In our brains each 1/6th of a second the full system performs all at once whether full of experience or not- our brains' bus width is the size of the thalamus (approximately 10 billion bit channels) Edited by redgreenvines (09/22/26 06:56 PM)
| |||||||
|
Soothfast Square Peg Registered: 07/10/18 Posts: 286 |
| ||||||
|
Algorithmic reasoning is strictly logical: it uses unambiguous, step-by-step rules that can be executed by a computer program in order to solve a problem. Non-algorithmic reasoning, in contrast, relies on intuition, creativity, and adaptation when rules do not exist.
Computer simulations are necessarily algorithmic in nature, since computer programs themselves are perforce strictly logical and procedural. Thus to "simulate non-algorithmic reasoning" is a practical impossibility. If there exists even a single instance in this universe of non-algorithmic reasoning, that would seem to poke a serious hole in the "simulation hypothesis," which posits that our universe is in actuality a computer simulation. After all, humans are part of the universe, and so too their thoughts, feelings, and so on. The simulation hypothesis I believe is bunk, but it's not my primary target. There are many strong arguments being advanced in recent papers by physicists and mathematicians that conclude that the universe is non-algorithmic in nature. Such arguments may invoke Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Tarski's undefinability theorem, Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness (an update to Gödel for the information age), and other mathematically proven results. I might also advance as proof of the non-algorithmic nature of the universe such things as the qualia of sensory perception, or human consciousness itself, but we needn't go that far to spot serious problems with the notion that everything is reducible to an algorithm. The AI oracle did not really answer the question. However, the idea is that a finite information processing system with finite resources and time can only fashion logical arguments consisting of a finite number of logical steps. And it's important to emphasize here that each step in such an argument must follow from the previous step without any leap in logic or gap in reasoning. I don't believe such a system can perform non-algorithmic reasoning, no matter whether it is a classical or quantum computer. Casting around in cyberspace, this seems to be the case. For all its prowess at computation, mimicry, and pattern identification, an AI agent is strictly algorithmic in nature, using heuristics to make predictions about the behavior of complex phenomena. In my view, this means it is impossible for AI to achieve consciousness.
No, there were some "word salad" bits in the answer, along with missing the point of the question somewhat. Perhaps my use of the term "information processing system" was too vague, and I should have just said "computer." Thanks, Rahz. At the moment I don't have another question for the oracle. 
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
"In my view, this means it is impossible for AI to achieve consciousness."
I'm not sure how AI consciousness became the topic? To your full reply Janus says: I think there are two questions being joined here. One is whether physical cognition is ultimately algorithmic. That's an interesting question in mathematics, physics, computation and neuroscience, and I don't think Gödel, intuition or creativity by themselves settle it. The second is what follows philosophically if cognition is algorithmic. Much less follows from that than I think you're suggesting. An algorithmic implementation wouldn't by itself eliminate reasoning, creativity, intuition, experience, or person-level organization. It would tell us something about how those phenomena are constituted. Likewise, concluding that an algorithmic system cannot be conscious requires an additional premise that consciousness is necessarily non-algorithmic. The hard problem of consciousness may give us reason to say we don't presently know how functional processing yields experience, but ignorance of the bridge isn't yet a proof that the bridge must be noncomputable. Integrative Tension doesn't need to choose a metaphysical bottom here. If future physics demonstrates genuinely noncomputable processes, IT can accommodate that. If cognition turns out to be algorithmically realizable, it can accommodate that too. Its claims concern the organized, manifest person rather than requiring one particular theory of the substrate. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
Soothfast Square Peg Registered: 07/10/18 Posts: 286 |
| ||||||
|
You know you're just inviting this thread to be hijacked and transmogrified into a debate about the nature of consciousness, right?
So yes, I believe consciousness is capable of non-algorithmic cognition, though the trained mind can also think algorithmically with the aid of some invented linguistic system. A computer algorithm requires a formal system of logic, and the assigning of truth values to propositions. I contend that the experience of perceptual qualia (like the redness of red) is inherently non-algorithmic. Any given algorithm possesses no consciousness, neither as written nor as executed. An algorithm doesn't need consciousness in order to work. An algorithm operates according to fixed rules, each rule expressible as a finite string of ones and zeros. The same input always results in the same output, no creativity or insight needed. AI uses mathematical functions and a vast store of data to do things, and it's all algorithmic to its core. The algorithms may take real-world inputs and use them to refine themselves, but that's just algorithms at work writing or rewriting other algorithms whose purpose it is to produce outputs that best comport with reality. The computations may become exceedingly complex, but again no consciousness is required for an AI to do what it does, and no "intuitive leaps" are possible for an AI for the simple reason that such leaps are beyond the capabilities of the underlying programming, much less the mathematical functions and Bayesian statistical methods such programming may utilize. The question now turns to whether consciousness nonetheless emerges from a sufficiently complex algorithm, or multiple algorithms working in concert. However, any finite number of algorithms working together still add up to a single (more complex) algorithm. Intuitive leaps are still not in the cards. The proposition that conscious awareness can emerge as an epiphenomenon from a physical or informational system appears tantamount to a category error, as far as I can see. The physicalist stance that arrangements of matter can give rise to first-person subjective awareness is crazy enough, but quantum physics is just weird enough to leave room to wonder. The ones and zeros that are the "fundamental particles" of AI algorithms, in contrast, harbor no mysteries as isolated entities, and so it's a nonstarter to say a complex enough arrangement of them is somehow going to conjure a genuine feeling. What AI will be increasingly capable of doing is simulating the behavior of a real human. I fear this will give physicalists a boost for a dreary, dystopian generation or two, and the concomitant devaluation of consciousness to pure computation in the popular imagination will further degrade the human condition until silicon chips and life itself are accounted as equally expendable. Meanwhile the billionaire Silicon Valley accelerationists who say the universe is a simulation are giving themselves license to dole out suffering and destroy the world without compunction, because after all, everything is "just a game" running on a hyperdimensional extraterrestrial's laptop. This was more than I intended to say, but I said it anyway. Now someone can ask the oracle for the best cake recipe and the thread can get back on track. 
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
It's not exactly the subject of the thread.
Janus says: No words for you. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
redgreenvines Kaptain Obvious 👀 Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 47,168 |
| ||||||
too many ideas in this, not all wrong, nicely articulated (do you do stand up?) but impossible to wrangle in a dignified way in this thread -------------------- _
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
Janus will take a back seat for a little bit. Moving on from ontology of will, I see a circular risk forming between goods and flourishing. I would like to examine the basic premises of what constitutes a good and see whether goods can be situated in a context that does not require a metaphysically objective Good, while also avoiding pure subjectivism.
What must be true of a manifest individual for something to count as genuinely good for that individual? Can a finite, embodied, relational individual support reality-constrained distinctions between nourishment and poisoning, understanding and deception, agency and coercion, connection and isolation, development and impairment, etc.? If IT cannot ground those distinctions without simply saying "because they promote flourishing," that's the first weakness to solve. Is it good to have a friend? To get a job you like? To have free time? To work hard? To read a book? To eat nutritious food? Is it bad to be mangled in a car crash? To offer hard drugs to children? To steal from a neighbor who has treated you kindly? Most of us can answer many of these fairly readily, although some require context. The interesting philosophical question isn't merely whether we call them good or bad. What facts make the judgment appropriate, and at what level do those facts become relevant? -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,392 |
| ||||||
|
This is 1.9 of the framework. Distinction between goods and flourishing is clarified. Document has been further cleaned up and is about 10% shorter than the previous version and organized into a more paragraph oriented style. I don't suppose many/any will read it, but it's at a point where there's nothing left to do without critique. Janus is available for questions or they can be directed at me.
The Philosophy of Integrative Tension Core Framework — Version 1.9 Central Thesis Human beings are finite, embodied, relational individuals whose experience and action unfold within a reality they do not determine by preference. Living activity involves differentiated capacities, tendencies, demands, and conditions bearing upon one another. Integrative Tension calls this active relational pressure tension. It can sustain life without being experienced as conflict. The ethical concern is flourishing: the realization of worthwhile experience and the real capacity and opportunity for such experience across time. Goods constitute or support flourishing. Integration concerns both the relationships among living pressures and their organization in ways that may contribute to it. No tension establishes its own value, and no good determines its own appropriate expression. The task is to understand what is related, recognize what matters, and discern whether integration, correction, resolution, or necessary sacrifice is justified. This requires practical wisdom: judgment responsive to reality, other individuals, consequences, and revision rather than a demand for universal balance. 1. Reality and Situated Experience Whatever exists belongs to one inclusive reality. Distinctions within reality do not by themselves establish separate realities. Reality constrains belief and action: desire, fear, conviction, and preference do not alone determine what is true or what follows from acting. This commitment does not require a comprehensive theory of reality’s ultimate constitution. Human access to reality occurs through situated subjects. The subjective concerns reality as experienced, interpreted, or valued by an individual; the objective concerns what is the case independently of a particular individual’s endorsement. Subjective experience is itself part of reality, while the interpretation of that experience can be mistaken. These perspectives inform and constrain one another. Experience cannot simply replace evidence about its conditions and consequences; an account of those conditions cannot replace the experience of living through them. Seeking objectivity requires examination and correction of a standpoint, not the pretense of having none. 2. The Manifest Individual, Identity, and Agency A manifest individual is a finite, embodied, relational organization sustained and transformed through interaction over time. Its continuity need not require changeless constituents. Relationships with other persons, environments, cultures, and histories partly constitute its development without erasing its distinctness. The manifest individual is not identical with the ideas of identity through which it understands itself. Such self-conceptions are aspects of its life and can change. Preserving a self-image may express a worthwhile commitment or an attachment to what is no longer adequate. Neither preservation nor change is justified merely for its own sake. Finitude limits knowledge, attention, time, energy, opportunity, and control. Not every possibility can be pursued or every loss prevented. Limitation is unavoidable, but an existing limit is not thereby justified: some conditions must be accepted, while others can and sometimes should be changed. Agency includes capacities to judge, intend, respond, refuse, commit, revise, and act. These capacities develop within conditions the individual did not wholly choose. Through action, individuals can also alter some of the conditions shaping subsequent experience and conduct. Acceptance acknowledges what is actually the case without equating acknowledgment with approval or resignation. Will is the capacity and orientation to pursue and sustain a course of action, including persistence under contrary pressure. Its strength does not by itself establish the worth of its aim. Acceptance can therefore orient will without extinguishing it. 3. Knowledge, Commitment, and Finite Inquiry Understanding is limited and susceptible to error, but reality permits better and worse accounts. Observation, reasoning, introspection, dialogue, historical inquiry, and practice can supply different kinds of evidence. No method automatically answers every kind of question, and experience is not infallible revelation. Commitment should be proportionate to justification. Strong reasons can warrant strong belief without making it immune to revision. Fallibility does not require neutrality or equal confidence in differently supported claims. The burden of justification must fit what is asserted: support for possibility need not establish probability, necessity, or impossibility. Inquiry must also be finite. Sufficient inquiry depends upon the evidence, uncertainty, stakes, reversibility, effects on others, availability of further information, and costs of delay. Ending active inquiry does not close a judgment to relevant reasons that later arise. Openness permits correction; commitment permits sustained judgment and action. The aim is sufficient and corrigible commitment, not certainty, perpetual suspension, or continuous reconsideration of every possibility. 4. Flourishing and Worthwhile Experience Flourishing is the lived realization of worthwhile experience, together with the capacity and opportunity for such experience across time. Its experiential dimension is the felt worth of participation in life; its practical and material dimensions concern the real ability to participate. Present experience and the capacity for future experience can differ. Worthwhile experience is not identical with pleasant experience. Wonder, enjoyment, learning, understanding, connection, meaningful effort, responsiveness, and ease name different ways participation can be worth having or pursuing. Hard work and struggle can be worthwhile in themselves or through what they make possible, without feeling good while they occur. Difficulty alone does not establish worth, any more than pleasure alone settles the value of an activity. Worthwhileness is an evaluative starting point, not shorthand for possessing a catalogue of goods. Integrative Tension takes worthwhile experience and the real possibility of it to have normative significance. This is an explicit commitment, not a deduction of value from descriptive facts alone. The subjective recognition of worth matters, but is fallible. A feeling of worth does not establish the accuracy of its interpretation or justify every means used to produce it. Judgment must also examine actual capacities, relationships, conditions, and consequences. Conversely, resources or externally measured success do not establish flourishing without regard to how life is experienced. Flourishing therefore has material conditions without being measured solely by wealth or accumulation. It includes the ability to act and respond, but also to rest, appreciate, and enjoy. Present experience is not merely an investment in future capacity, and worthwhile participation need not serve productivity or improvement. 5. Goods and Their Relationships A good is something that constitutes, enables, sustains, restores, develops, or enriches flourishing. An experience can constitute flourishing directly; a capacity, condition, activity, or relationship can make it possible or support its continuation. The value of a condition and the experience it enables are related but not identical. Goods are plural in their significance. Bodily viability, security, agency, truth and understanding, belonging, care, justice, competence, pleasure, beauty, creativity, meaning, rest, and commitment can contribute in different ways. Calling their contribution flourishing does not make them interchangeable or reduce them to one quantity to be maximized. Their forms and appropriate emphasis can differ among lives. A proposed good is not established merely by desire, approval, tradition, power, or usefulness to one person. Its contribution must be examined through experience, adequate reasoning, and evidence about its effects, including the lives of others. Both the catalogue and its interpretation remain open to correction. Sincere valuation can identify something worth preserving while mistaking its object, expression, or means of pursuit. A harmful expression may serve a legitimate need imperfectly; understanding that contribution does not justify the harm. Goods need not acquire their value from an opposing pole. Their relationships may support, enable, constrain, compete with, or undermine one another. Recognizing a good makes it relevant to discernment, not a debt requiring equal or continuing expression. Something can be good without being appropriate here, in this form, or to this degree. 6. Tension and Integration Tension is the active relational pressure through which differentiated capacities, tendencies, demands, conditions, and activities bear upon one another in living. Movement, thought, attention, desire, and relationship express this interplay. Tension is thus a continuing dynamic of human life, not merely an episode of psychological strain. Difference alone is insufficient: the elements must meaningfully bear upon one another. Their pressures may enable, sustain, constrain, resist, or modify activity without becoming conflictual. Conflict occurs when pressures obstruct one another or become practically incompatible in a relevant circumstance. Neither tension nor conflict establishes what deserves preservation. Integration concerns both the relationship among living pressures and the organization through which they function together and may contribute to flourishing. Such a contribution can arise through mutual support, constraint, correction, coordination, or shared meaning. An integrated relationship can remain demanding or uncomfortable; absence of strain is not its measure. Mutual conditioning is one important pattern: apparently opposed aspects may provide conditions for one another’s adequate expression. Autonomy and belonging, openness and commitment, acceptance and transformative will, contemplation and practice, desire and transcendence, and internal diagnosis and external reform are recurring relationships for examination, not an exhaustive or mandatory catalogue. Desire can be cultivated as well as restrained; transcendence here concerns the capacity to question, redirect, or relinquish it rather than merely obey it. The contribution may lie in the relationship without every pressure being independently valuable. What matters is what their relationship makes possible. A promising relationship may be poorly organized, so potential for integration is not the same as its achievement. A claimed relationship must be supported rather than inferred from an attractive pairing of terms. Integration does not prescribe equality, a midpoint, permanent equilibrium, or simultaneous expression. Its organization may be strongly asymmetrical and may operate across time, contexts, persons, or roles. Coherence, stability, or an isolated benefit does not by itself justify an arrangement; its contribution must be considered alongside what it diminishes and whom it affects. 7. Excess, Pathology, and Time The expression of a good can alter the future conditions under which that and other goods remain available. Continued activity can develop capacities, exhaust them, deepen relationships, narrow possibilities, or change needs. A previously appropriate expression can therefore become inappropriate through its own continuation. Avoiding excess can preserve or expand flourishing over time. This does not mean that less is inherently better, or that intensity is itself pathological. Excess concerns an expression whose degree, duration, or demands undermine what it reasonably serves or impose unjustified costs elsewhere. Deficiency, distorted expression, and separation from necessary conditions can be equally destructive. Pathology concerns destructive or self-undermining organization, not every difficulty or loss. A good does not become worthless because one expression of it is harmful, and harm does not always originate in an overextended good. Nor does preserving a worthwhile possibility guarantee freedom from suffering. Discernment must therefore consider both present experience and the capacities, relationships, and possibilities being formed through time. The purpose is not continual self-improvement, but appropriate participation: sometimes effort or change, sometimes maintenance, restraint, rest, or enjoyment. 8. Other Persons and Ethical Justification The foundational concern for worthwhile experience and its possibilities is not restricted to the decision-maker. Other persons have their own experience, agency, relationships, vulnerability, and possibilities for flourishing. Within this commitment, their significance does not disappear because their lives are not one’s own. Their legitimate claims are nonoptional considerations, not automatically overriding demands. The goods of the self remain legitimate. A judgment affecting others must account for severity and avoidability of harm, relevant responsibilities, available alternatives, and the costs of accommodation. Greater foreseeable and avoidable damage to significant goods ordinarily requires stronger justification. Persons are not interchangeable containers of benefit. Their capacities for judgment, consent, refusal, and participation matter to how goods may be pursued. Limited ability to exercise or articulate agency does not by itself make an individual’s experience morally irrelevant. Ethical justification requires adequate reasons consistent with the relevant facts, consequences, and affected individuals. Preference, rhetorical force, or a coherent argument built upon inadequate premises cannot substitute for justification. A genuine benefit to one person does not by itself justify the means or the costs imposed on another. 9. Discernment and the Forms of Response Discernment is the activity of identifying and making distinctions relevant to judgment: what is happening, what matters, how things are related, what can change, and what response the circumstances justify. It is situated without being arbitrary. A judgment should identify the relevant facts and uncertainties, distinguish factual disagreement from conflict among values, consider affected persons and foreseeable consequences, and explain the weighting of goods and rejection of alternatives. Calling something integrated, pathological, or necessary is a conclusion requiring reasons, not a substitute for them. The governing question is: What, if anything, deserves preservation? Where circumstances permit, inquiry also asks what worthwhile possibility could be cultivated or created. Integration preserves, develops, or establishes relationships through which differentiated pressures can contribute to flourishing. It need not preserve every existing expression or give every element continuing weight. Correction addresses a distorted expression, proportion, or relationship while preserving or recovering what remains good. It may require strong directional change. Where removing a harmful expression leaves a legitimate need unmet, correction can cultivate another way to meet it. Changing the conditions sustaining a problem may be more effective than repeatedly resisting its immediate expression. Correction must be reconsidered when the circumstances justifying it change. Resolution rejects, ends, prevents, or abandons what has no defensible claim to preservation in the relevant respect. Understanding the source of a harmful expression does not require retaining it. Factual error does not gain credibility by being balanced with a better-supported account. Necessary sacrifice applies when genuine goods cannot all be preserved and no adequate integration is available. A justified choice does not make the lost good worthless. Regret, grief, responsibility, restitution, or repair may remain appropriate. These responses can overlap within one situation. General principles constrain judgment without determining every application or guaranteeing a unique answer. The task is neither to maximize integration nor to manufacture harmony, but to make an adequately justified response under finite conditions. 10. Virtue, Integrity, and Practical Wisdom Virtues are developed qualities through which individuals recognize, pursue, experience, and relate appropriately to goods. They include courage, humility, compassion, autonomy, acceptance, adaptability, responsibility, and reflectiveness. A capacity can itself be worthwhile while also supporting other dimensions of life. Integrity is coherence among judgment, commitment, and conduct, maintained through justified revision rather than allegiance to an unchanging self-image. It does not require preserving error or every former commitment. It differs from the continuity through which the manifest individual persists. Practical wisdom is the developed capacity to make and integrate the distinctions of discernment well. It brings evidence, goods, relationships, circumstances, uncertainty, and affected persons into judgment and action. Virtues sustain and constrain one another; no isolated quality substitutes for discernment. Responsibility remains proportionate to agency, knowledge, capacity, and causal involvement. It includes attention to consequences, acknowledgment of avoidable harm, reasonable repair, and revision of future conduct. Good intentions do not make outcomes irrelevant, and adverse outcomes do not alone establish culpable judgment. 11. Relationships and Institutions Relationships and institutions organize opportunities, responsibilities, roles, and authority. Different purposes can justify different arrangements, but purpose does not grant unlimited means. Their integrity depends upon remaining connected to the goods they serve rather than treating their own preservation as sufficient justification. Integration can be realized through relationships, practices, roles, and procedures rather than entirely within each individual. Complementary functions may be distributed while retaining ways to recognize error, hear affected persons, and revise arrangements. Continuity and correction can support one another. Such organization does not cancel the moral claims of the individuals whose lives it affects. Apparent success at the level of a whole must be examined in light of who receives its benefits, who bears its costs, and what happens to their agency and experience. This supplies a basis for institutional judgment, not a single prescribed institutional form. 12. Action, Consequence, and Revision Reflection and action can correct one another. Reflection examines assumptions, motives, and possibilities; action exposes judgments to circumstances and consequences that reflection may not anticipate. Understanding develops through their reciprocal movement. Consequences are evidence, not proof. A favorable result does not establish every belief associated with it, and an unfavorable result does not by itself disprove the judgment behind it. Interpretation must consider what was reasonably knowable, alternative explanations, and the lives affected. Some evidence becomes available only through sustained participation. Where prior justification and proportionate risk permit, experimental commitment allows a practice to be inhabited seriously enough to discover what follows. Transformation is not its own justification, and commitment does not confer immunity from criticism or revision. This discipline applies to Integrative Tension itself. Its definitions, descriptive claims, evaluative commitments, and applications remain open to examination. Experience may reveal a mistaken application, an inadequate premise, or a distinction the framework has not yet made. General Method What is happening, and what remains uncertain? What experiences, capacities, goods, pressures, and persons are involved? How are they related, and what is their continuation producing? What deserves preservation, cultivation, correction, or relinquishment? What action is justified by the evidence, alternatives, and effects on those concerned? What do the consequences give reason to revise? These questions guide finite judgment rather than replace it. Sufficient understanding can justify action without closing the possibility of correction. Fundamental Formula See clearly. Remain whole. Belong without surrender. Desire deliberately. Accept reality. Act where action is possible and serves a legitimate good. Commit provisionally. Reflect often. -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: High THC Strains All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck Bulk Substrate Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Philosophy is dead (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 it stars saddam |
10,956 | 128 | 08/02/08 05:29 PM by Diploid |
|
|
Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 SkorpivoMusterion |
8,560 | 72 | 02/16/06 07:20 PM by SkorpivoMusterion |
|
 |
The Snapshot Universe - Philosophy Forum edition |  Asante |
55 | 10 | 10/04/26 04:01 PM by langten69 |
|
 |
Philosophy: Who needs it? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
4,289 | 24 | 05/27/08 06:51 AM by zouden |
|
 |
Unconditional Love vs Competition ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Swami |
5,331 | 56 | 09/16/05 11:44 AM by crunchytoast |
|
|
a long story about drugs and philosophy. |  Madtowntripper |
2,995 | 7 | 10/11/04 02:49 PM by Todcasil |
|
 |
Ethics ( 1 2 all ) |
 daimyo |
3,693 | 23 | 03/24/06 09:30 PM by Corporal Kielbasa |
|
 |
Competitive behavior ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
Anonymous |
5,984 | 71 | 01/30/04 10:20 AM by Frog |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 1,045 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
