24 ALTERNATIVES FOR COMPREHENSIVE MODELS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ETHICS 1ST SET: MODEL 1: Descriptor Theory This is a basic model of language-building, inventiveness, and world-concept building. So far as I know, it underlies the current model of anthropology. It takes place through an association between the primitive concept of self, such as how you feel when you get out of bed, or how you feel when you go to a rest-stop, and actions fueled by primitive desires like thirst and vengeance. When the actions that take place through descriptor theory are formalized into people, objects, organizations, and superstitions, then we get things like science and religion, knowledge and symbolism. Critique: MODEL 2: Functional-Purpose Theory (Teleology) The principle of cause and effect is under-written by theories of purpose which may be more eternal. Whether the cause is natural or supernatural, the purpose or function of a thing is the simple explanation of what the thing means for us in our practical or meaningful existence. This is the primary theory that leads up to Newton’s invention of the most rudimentary laws of physics. Critique: MODEL 3: Basic Realization Theory (Transcendentalism) This is a theory originating with early Indian cosmologists that experience as we find it is very basic, but higher forms of existence and purpose are possible. Therefore, the life that we have as we know it is a rather basic form of existence, and the difference between our existence and the higher existence is explained by the existence of illusions. For, if higher potential is possible in the imagination, there is no reason that it would not ultimately be the case. But, since it cannot be observed in this world, it is clear that there is something (illusion) separating the many worlds. Critique: MODEL 4: Psychology (Ideal Materialism) In this model, which embraces a beginning point in aesthetics, human purpose, and the rationalization of experience, the phenomena of experience (at least as we know them) are a result of actions in the mind. If there is something wrong with experience, then there is something wrong with us. Matter, if it is imperfect, is still blameless, and there is nothing to stop us from idealizing the materials we find before us. If there is something wrong with idealizing, then this does not place a limit on human happiness, but rather changes the character of the appropriate experience. The result might be something either psychic or scientific, and the duality between them is essentially a practical one. Critique: 2ND SET: MODEL 5: Conceptualism Conceptualists reject the inherent descriptiveness of the world in favor of a deference to design principles. Designs may be good, or at least appear good, but that does not mean that the world itself has been perfectly designed. However, it may be that designs can contribute to a good world. And it may be practical concerns which prevent the world from appearing as if it were obviously perfectly constructed. Critique: MODEL 6: Cosmology Finding an alliance between Basic Realization and Conceptualism, Coherent Cosmologists believe that if we are not in the right cosmos, then it is something wrong with us. In any case, the cosmos was designed a certain way, and the differences between one universe and another still reflect the unified vision of God or nature. If there is something wrong with the cosmos, then that is something interesting to study, and how we study the cosmos and what it means reflects in the understanding of the most meaningful purposes for humanity. What we understand about the world influences who we are, and the limit (or limitlessness) of our potential. Critique: MODEL 7: Mathematical Science Studying the most objective properties of the world yields the best understanding of nature, and reflects the deepest possible understanding of the intelligence found in the universe. This is the understanding of science. Mere theories, and endless unfounded variations do nothing to describe the world as it should be understood, or at least how it could be accurately represented. Critique: The scientific view rejects the emotional view, and thus rejects a large part of the faculties of perception. MODEL 8: Coherent Knowledge Citing a problem with math’s ability to relate with every type of thing, such as organics, human knowledge, the supernatural, and the linguistic, theories advanced by myself advocate the use of specialized knowledge applications to convey the linguistic version of the truths of nature. The application allows radical correspondence between language, nature, science, and religion concepts, by using a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System relating all properties between extremes, but excluding zero. Critique: Critics of coherency are likely to cite its imperfection, its ‘inadequacy’ or non-empirical-ness, or its lack of scientific rigor. 3RD SET: MODEL 9: Irrational Romanticism Romantics say that rational claims are not the limit of known experience. Effectively, rational concepts place a limit on what can be known, and thus, they do not convey the ‘secrets’ of how life really works. Understanding life requires moving beyond all rational concepts, to discover the poetic, artistic, or in some other way ‘mad’ concept of whatever happens to concern us. Madness is not only a concept of the meaning of nature, but a concept of the meaning of numbers. It has a capacity to explain anything which is beyond reason. And it has properties that work for the exceptional reason. Critique: If irrationality has some legitimacy, doesn’t rationality have even more legitimacy? By the time we formalize an irrational system, haven’t we got a rational system out of it? Perhaps irrationality is only a matter of definition, whereas rationality involves substantial concepts which can be seen without requiring our emotions… MODEL 10: Justice Treating madmen like normal people has its limitations. If a large population is mad, the result is chaos. If no justice is instilled, civilization is corrupt, and collapses. Therefore, with or without any concept of how nature or civilization work, there must be some form of justice instilled to prevent utter chaos. Critique: Elites argue that justice is not supposed to be evenly distributed. MODEL 11: Solipsism Radical solipsists argue that experience is one thing, whether it is rational or irrational, or some other thing. What defines experience is something apart from---although chained to----our faculty of knowledge. We should abandon the idea that these things mean anything to those beyond us. Instead, what is meaningful is what is meaningful for us individually. Critique: Functionality seems to depend on accepting the reality of other human beings. Otherwise, there is no alternative to Utopia, which has not been seen as a functional society (it means ‘No Place’). MODEL 12: Spiritualism Rejecting every type of negativity, spiritualists find purpose in the world’s activities through the connection to the supernatural. Critique: Some believe that the views developed by religion are not literally true. Continued- 4TH SET: MODEL 13: Humanism Humanism adopts a more literal view than religion, in which practical human motivations should guide all inquiries, logic, and forms of understanding. Although it seems to gamble on human development for its primary motivation, it could be argued that human development concerns everything humans are concerned with, and in this way it is a very broad concern. Critique: Humanism may ultimately be too generic and un-creative to effect real change. MODEL 14: Theology The study of divinity has potential to teach what other disciplines could not teach. It seems, on the surface at least, to concern things which are of more fundamental importance than human reality. Critique: Theologians are people who are not concerned with the practical implications of their work, but only the cloistered, spiritualized variations of arguments made by key figures who are frequently long dead. In this sense, theology does not concern a living tradition, but only tautologies. MODEL 15: Socialism and Technocracy Rejecting theology as impractical, socialists and technocrats focus on the practical implications of society, human problems, and sometimes, where possible, human significance. It doesn’t make much difference whether humans are defined as animals, gods, humans, or post-human. What matters is how society functions, and the realizable goals and ideal conditions of social functioning. Such a system would widely accept the personal merits of people who are alive, and sometimes undergo shifts to re-envision old systems that seem out-dated. If the system works well, then the strategic shifts occur without much damage. However, this is not a Utopia, and small amounts of damage may allow the society to remain responsive to larger crises. Critique: Some argue that a disillusioned society is not really functional, and that we may as well turn back to some form of religion. MODEL 16: Post-Humanism The natural development of practical humanism, post-humanism involves a society in which people become in a practical sense more-than-human. This can have a wide range of implications, but it is suspected that in some ways, barring a major crisis, post-human society will be more functional, entertaining, and intelligent than previously, in ways that are hard for previous generations to imagine. Critique: Post-humanism is still potentially not understanding of the state of nature, and its own influence on the outcome of universal development. 5TH SET: MODEL 17: Metaphysics It is argued by metaphysicians that understanding our place in nature involves a significant degree of comprehension, and it goes well beyond any common understanding of religion or science. Such a view is not only practical, but also knowledgeable, and not only knowledgeable, but functional, and not only functional, but meaningful. Not everyone knows how to acquire such a system, but the beginning point is a process of self-examination. Critique: Many argue that practical existence is always more important, and it is usually simply sensual pleasure which leads to fulfillment. MODEL 18: Hedonism Hedonists argue that pleasure is all that is necessary for the good life. Frequently, disillusioned people will turn to entertainment as a priority, to defend them from the difficulties of life. Entertainment is an oasis, which at least appears to have a priority of serving human interest and defending the righteousness of the human. Critique: Pleasure sometimes leads to bad consequences. Entertainment is still subject to human ugliness, stupidity, and death. MODEL 19: Epicureanism and Aestheticism and the Immortal Quest Epicureans reject some pleasures as un-sustainable or dangerous, and advocate the life of a secluded hermit over social indulgences. Similarly, Aesthetes favor some pleasures over others, believing the high-minded life is preferable to the ‘lower life’ of pigs and slobs. Raising a critique of all of the bad things in life, it is sometimes concluded that the one good thing is to pursue immortality. Critique: It is said that Epicureans and artists are hypocrites or nihilists, and some indulgence would usually lead to more. Pleasure is the only answer to pleasure, in other words. It is argued that immortality is not achievable, and not everyone is good enough. MODEL 20: Asceticism and Enlightenment Abandoning pleasure---or at least pleasure as others understand it---- altogether might lead to a better life. At least, it might lead to a life without the greatest harms, like Hell or venereal disease, or God’s anger. Sometimes advanced ascetics see asceticism as an alternate path to transcendence, which accepts human death, but sees another path to great spiritual accomplishment. Critique: It is argued that asceticism is unsustainable and un-enjoyable. It looks good from the outside, but it actually is miserable. As soon as someone could enjoy the ascetic life, they could have a lot of fun doing something else. If enlightened people aren’t immortal, where does that leave the rest of us? So, maybe they’re doing something wrong… 6TH SET: MODEL 21: Fascination (Child’s Mind) Some, including some scientists, and also Buddhists, have advocated some amount of returning to child’s mind, or the fascination and imagination of the early experiences of youth. This would serve the purpose of avoiding disillusionment, depression, and over-thinking that might result from continually developing adult thoughts, or becoming obsessed with advanced ideas. Critique: MODEL 22: Resourcefulness / Evolution Some have argued that flimsy answers like child’s mind don’t do enough for experience. They argue some sort of resource adaptation is required, or some form of evolution into a new frame of mind, or a new practical ability to handle problems. Critique: How to do this? It might not be easy, so it might be a bad idea. MODEL 23: Genius Rejecting many other ideas as run-of-the-mill, some see genius as the ultimate evolution currently available. In this view, the mind trumps or over-performs any other attempt to be spiritual or scientific. What can be done well by following rules can be done even better just by thinking about it. In this view, the ultimate hedonism, the ultimate religion, the ultimate science, is for the moment all about the experience and understanding of the mind / or human cognition. Critique: Not everyone can be a genius even if they choose to be, someone might say. And if they are a genius, that doesn’t mean they don’t have flaws. Just because someone is a genius doesn’t mean they’re perfect. And, there are many people who aren’t geniuses. And it’s supposedly impossible to perform better than anyone. So, it can’t be about competition. MODEL 24: Radical Acceptance of Passivity Noticing the failures of many traditions, some spiritual teachers have argued for radical acceptance of the passive condition of life. Accepting life allows you to do anything you are capable of. It is also a way to psychologically adapt, and it has none of the drawbacks of something that is a mere theory. Critique: Many have found this adaptation hard to implement. And some have criticized it for being morally permissive. Nathan Coppedge / SCSU 7/20/2015, p.