To Alter or to Abolish - Chapter 1 - Ideas and Interpretations


	Simple Liberty

	Essays Books Treatises Research Home

	To Alter or to Abolish Chapter 1 Ideas and Interpretations Written by Darrell Anderson. You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes . . . Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more . . . . Morpheus to Neo, The Matrix Nature knows no systems. Within nature, that which is, is. All systems are mere models of human invention that help people understand the universe. A “system” is a model describing a collection or process of things or variables, all possessing certain interrelated observable characteristics and relationships. Systems are evolving and changeable “black boxes” representing the unknowns of the universe. Because all systems are human inventions, all systems are therefore arbitrary. Arbitrary does not mean meaningless, imaginary, random, or illogical, but subjective and discretionary. By definition, all systems contain arbitrary boundaries, and within those descriptive boundaries are elements and relational rules. System elements might be tangible or intangible, real or imaginary. Attributes or characteristics describe the perceived nature, features, or traits of the elements. System relational rules describe how the elements interact within the defined boundaries. When describing human systems, the term relational rule is not referring to a concept of human law or statutes, but serves only to describe how system elements interact. For example, a characteristic of common magnets is there will be a north and south pole of attraction. A relational rule describes how magnets will interact with one another — attracting or repelling depending upon orientation toward one another. There are three types of systems: Closed system: nothing crosses the system boundaries, in or out. Open system: boundaries can be crossed and might experience uncontrolled inputs and outputs (system disturbances). Isolated system: an open system, but experiences changes under controlled, limited, or restricted conditions. By definition, changing any system boundary, element, or relational rule automatically creates a different system. The effects of changing the parameters of one system might or might not hold true for another system. Differences in system parameters — both internal and external — generate dynamic responses. A momentary observation or analysis of a dynamic system is a static analysis, and is limited in usefulness to understand that system. A static analysis cannot fully explain dynamic processes.[1] Analyzing only one element of a complex system also is limited in usefulness and sometimes leads to incorrect generalizations about the entire system. Such generalizations are called fallacies of composition. Systems are based upon understanding. Understanding begins with ideas. Ideas are abstract constructs — concepts — and are problem-solving mechanisms to better understand the universe. Ideas about that which does not exist or has not yet been proven to exist are conjecture. Conjecture leads to theories and a process of authenticating or testing those ideas.[2] The process of understanding is based upon observation and interpretation. Reasonably authenticated ideas and observations become facts.[3] Facts are observable but nonetheless interpreted chunks of information bearing specific and repeatable characteristics. The process of exploring and authenticating ideas creates knowledge. Knowledge is a reasonably authenticated accumulation of interpretations about that which exists. The Greek philosopher Socrates believed that the greatest concern of any individual should be a desire to distinguish knowledge from opinion.[4] Nobody knows the roots of all human thinking or how humans came to possess abilities to think abstractly. There is no historical or scientific evidence or recording to validate a theory of origins. There is only conjecture. God, evolution, quantum mechanics, whatever — nobody knows. Therefore, all thinking processes fundamentally are based upon presumption, not fact. Presumption: An attitude or belief based upon possibility or probability instead of fact — a process of accepting something without evidence or basis in fact. Unfortunately, humans are creatures of limited knowledge, and presumptions can and often do lead to faulty theories and contestable facts. Figure 1 A mixed collection of ideas, conjecture, theories, and facts evolves into beliefs. If proven false but maintained those beliefs become illusions and beliefs that individuals exempt from authentication become myths.[5] Myths are not necessarily false, just not testable. Often myths attempt to convey a concept and provide some benefit as in the nature of a proverb or parable.[6] Illusions and myths that humans believe despite no supportable evidence often are called superstitions. A collection or system of beliefs is called an ideology,[7] or better, a worldview. Every individual’s worldview exists completely and solely between the ears. Worldviews are system models — a collection of ideas, conjectures, theories, facts, illusions, and myths — where humans attempt to create an understanding about reality, the world, and universe. A worldview is a thought system, a point of reference that becomes an object of devotion to help provide meaning and purpose in life.[8] Fundamentally, all worldviews are mental or metaphysical mechanisms of survival. The universe is bigger than any individual can know. Thus, all worldviews are incomplete — always. Additionally, humans tend to interpret reality as they would like rather than as reality is. As with all living creatures, humans tend to resist unwanted change.[9] As with all social creatures, humans also face challenges of social pressures when considering change. Worldviews provide a sense of purpose and comfort. Therefore, many individuals treat their worldviews as closed systems.[10] Individuals tend to ignore or misinterpret any new knowledge differing with their existing worldview.[11] Although cautious individuals admit the possibility of error, many operate as though there is no error in their thinking or worldview.[12] Many humans often experience what is called cognitive dissonance — a process where humans reject new information because of disagreements with their preferred worldview. Because worldviews are mechanisms for survival, few individuals are willing to openly explore contrary ideas and theories and adjust their worldview. Therefore, worldviews change slowly, if at all. Unlike other animal species, humans possess an ability for self-delusion.[13] Thus, many human problems are the result of ignorance and superstition. Such a process creates tension in human relationships. Worldviews often serve a limited purpose unless shared with other people. Humans can share information and ideas through several methods, such as oral traditions, literature, personal experience, and methodical or scientific investigation.[14] However, each method depends upon symbolic interpretation — language, and language is the only mechanism through which people share ideas and information.[15] Figure 2 Unfortunately, often language is vague and the process of communicating ideas is strained. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity [clarity], therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined.[16] Words build sentences and sentences frame ideas.[17] The words you now are reading are no different and cannot escape that process — regardless of how precise the explanations and choice of words. Because words are subject to interpretation, readers will have different responses to what is written and will derive different conclusions from what might have been originally intended or anticipated. Although language often is inadequate, unfortunately there is no other mechanism to share ideas fully. Thus, humans attempt to convey ideas and overcome this inadequacy by engaging in continual dialogue. Tensions often arise in human relationships when those dialogues stop without consensus conclusion. Humans are continually adjusting their understanding of the universe and are continually creating new systems — new models. This process never stops and cannot stop. How do individuals know what they know or think they know? People working within the field of epistemology — the study of the origins and limits of human knowledge — try to answer that question. The limits of knowledge are a challenge all humans face. Everything existing between our ears — everything — is interpreted. Being interpreted does not mean imaginary or trivial. The physical world of matter and energy exists and the resulting pain from a tree limb falling on your head is real and not imagined. How individuals interpret the incident and the resulting pain is a different issue. Excluding the bare physiological foundations of survival, all ideas, conventions, and beliefs — because they ultimately are arbitrary and abstract in nature — also ultimately exist only between our ears. When ignoring the metaphysical — which includes the spiritual — humans are no different than other life forms. All humans are engaged in mere survival. Unless and until proven otherwise, metaphysical and spiritual concepts exist only in our minds. That does not mean these ideas and concepts are worthless, illusionary, or false, only that they are not today readily or easily provable. Despite what individuals might believe regarding how ideas, conventions, and beliefs originate, those opinions are not universal or physical laws, but mere arbitrary choices. Because new knowledge can change interpretations of the universe, all ideas, conventions, and beliefs are subject to change. As a system or model, humans can be studied individually or collectively. Each approach produces different systems. Different collections of humans produce different systems. Because no human is the same, no collection of humans is the same. However, some basic observations can be established about humans, whether acting individually or collectively: Humans are creatures of free will — that is, humans can choose their actions. Humans cannot not act. Humans are self-aware, possess an ability to reason, and possess an ability to articulate ideas. Humans can change but cannot stop being who they are. Humans are a product of their continually changing environment. The universe is not bigger than anyone knows, but bigger than anyone can know. Humans are creatures of limited knowledge. Every human is ignorant, just less ignorant about some subjects than others. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not stupidity. Complete certainty is impossible. Many humans embrace various superstitions. Humans know only what they interpret. All interpretations, whether emotional or symbolic, are mental images. Language is an abstract symbolic descriptive process. Symbols, including words, are only representations of things, both material and immaterial, and not the thing itself. All interpretations are subjective, even when using rigid abstract constructs such as mathematics. Humans cannot avoid interpreting. No individual can be a completely impartial, disinterested observer. Any event not personally witnessed is second-hand knowledge and hearsay. All historical recordings are merely an interpretation of events, experiences, and senses. Conscious human action demonstrates a particular belief based upon accumulated knowledge and interpretations. No human escapes this process. Based upon this discussion, some important questions might be asked. What is reason? What is rational? What is moral? What is ethical? What is legal? What is justice? Can such questions be answered or only discussed? For thousands of years humans have wrestled with such questions. Consider a most ancient and contentious question: What is truth? To be claimed as true something must be universally accepted.[18] If human existence is a result of observation and continually changing and adapting interpretations, and language is an imperfect mechanism to convey ideas, then the only credible answer to that question is, “that depends.” Or to quote a well-known but infamous reply, “That depends upon what the definition of is is.” That is not to declare such a profound question should be treated cavalierly, only that answering the question is not as straightforward as some individuals have convinced themselves to believe. What is considered a fact or illusion today might change with additional knowledge tomorrow. Finis. Terms of Use Next: Chapter 2 — Energy Flows Table of Contents Bibliography Endnotes [1] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Great Reckoning, p. 259. [2] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, pp. 9–10. [3] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 5. [4] Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, p. 181, 249. [5] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, pp. 4–5. [6] Sperling, Psychology Made Simple, p. 14. [7] Stevenson and Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, p. 9. [8] Fromm, The Sane Society, pp. 65–66. [9] Stevenson and Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, p. 229. [10] Stevenson and Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, p. 13. [11] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Great Reckoning, p. 250. [12] Spencer, “Over-Legislation,” The Man Versus The State, pp. 265–266. [13] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 39. [14] Sperling, Psychology Made Simple, pp. 13–14. [15] Zane, The Story of Law, p. 444. [16] The Federalist Papers, No. 37. [17] Barnard, Draining the Swamp, p. 148. [18] Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, pp. 132–133.


	Essays Books Treatises Research Contact Me Terms of Use Definitions Search Home