Join the new world

Live Sharp Look Smart

It's been too long since I fired up a jazzy e-philosophical treatise. I'd meant to do this for y'all back on Midsummer Day, a time when the Old Beta Gods traditionally lit e-bonfires to acknowledge the impending return of Darkness.

But I was busy at the time with other things. Plus I didn't really feel like it.


In certain schools of Great Wind the first visualization to work on is seeing the Teacher as a child, meditating on the Moon.


Here I would like to try, briefly, and no doubt unsatisfactorily, to approach the problems of e-being and e-becoming by questioning the very foundations of our e-knowledge.


The More or Less Truthy, the Similarly Falsish and the Semi-Negations

Let us consider that within the closed Cartesian system of e-Republic there is an element E which serves as the basic machinery for the centration of both objects and sub-objects called 'truthy'. Let us further assert that all elements in this system are multiple, even when null.

Then let our reason engage the rebellious relation that all thinking establishes between the unpresentation of e-being and the procedure of truthiness. Go ahead. Do it now.



It follows that some remarks are in order.

First we can ask: What is the centration of truthiness?





Quite obvious really, when looked at categorically and not as an exercise in old-fashioned V1 or V2 set-based logic.

To keep it simple, let's start without considering sub-objects. It is self-evident that the truthy must have a centration, which is to say an arrow pointing to it from the One, which is quite simply Being and Nothingness, or if you like, the Multiple Universes (U) or if you prefer the schools of the Great Wind, we can instead think of it as the Void (V). In any case, whether speaking of the Supreme Ultimate Subject as either All or Nothing-at-All, in our nifty and userful categorical notation we can diagram this relationship simply as 1-->E.

And we will refer to the One (1) as the Terminal Object.

The arrow from 1 to E is a movement, a transition, an exercise of energy or force or power of some kind, which names the relationship between 1 and E. We can diagram this as 1--(T)->E, with the understanding that T is the name of the line from the Terminal Object to E. As noted above, the monomorphic relationship is self-evident. It should also be obvious that multiple instances of 1--(T)--> can likewise point to E. By commutation, then, we can say that E self-identifies E or E-->E.

This naked expression of the originary Parmenidian relation between truth and identity is categorically centrated as the square of One(s) to E('s), using duplicity as our standard model. Note that even when sub-objects are introduced, say multiples of A, which point to 1 polymorphically, this does not modify the centration of T on E.





The next logical question becomes: What is truthiness the centration of?



Every arrow to the target E is the centration of some sub-object. In modern, post-V2 e-category theory we say that this arrow names the power of or the path from the One (rather than saying, for example, that "E is an element of 1", which gives us no way to grasp the complexities and ambiguities at work).

The conclusion is obvious: the truthy is the centration of the identity of One, the terminal object. Observing that E can be reached via multiple similar channels from Oneness, then we can say that it IS its name, T.

The centration is the correlation between truthiness and the extreme minimums and maximums of identity, something like the cosine of 1/x near zero. You get to truthiness by focusing on elementary identity, that which fixes the One to the horizon of visibility of any given universe.

By the way, truthiness delivered as the centration of the power of the One shouldn't be confused with a truth.





Now things get interesting as we ask: And the falsish?

Since we know that an element of the Game is named truthy, wherefore art thou falsy? Amirite?

Clearly, it is unreasonable for falsiness to be the other element, some kind of "Anti-E"?

That sinking feeling you are having my friends is the the point where, from the interior of the possible, as illuminated by our categorically transcendent e-mathematics, classical and non-classical logics, the analytic and the dialectic, collide and confront each other. One may even begin to suspect that mastering differential and integral perspectives may not actually cover the possible waterfront of scientific visualizations of data streams after all.



Let's say for now that the false is the centration of the unique and special arrow which goes from the Initial Object (0, Zero) towards the Terminal Object (1).
So now we have 0-->1-->E and by simple duplicity of One's (allowed, since we established that all elements are multiple), we can easily imagine a square carrying the forces of 0--(of 1)-->1--(T)-->E and 0--(of the second 1)-->1--(F)-->E, where F is the name assigned to falsiness.

It should be obvious that F is a name of the centrated element E, which is decidedly neither empty nor dualistic, but has two names, the truthy and the falsish.

But are they really two? In the e-mathematics of the categorical, difference is cunning and identity is evasive. The truthic and falsic are after two arrows, two monomorphisms which share the same source (1) and the same target (E). Can they simply be two different names for the same act? Do truth-values simply superimpose, a la Nietzsche, their nominal duality upon an identical principle of power?




Now, my little chickadees, here is the demonstration of a philosophical statement:

If the universe is degenerate, that is, if it contains real difference, then the truthy and the falsish cannot be, as actions or arrows or powers or energy-forces or names, identical. In a nutshell, if the Universe is multiple, then truthiness is intrinsically different from falsiness. The existence of difference in general induces the truthy and the falsish.



False tropes: a Super Man's power degenerates and a woman weeps. Without the degeneration of power, we'd be frozen in a hellish universe with no meaning.




Let's suppose for a moment that the category (E, the Universe of eRepbulik) was not degenerate. If truthiness and falsiness are identical, then the sub-objects of which they are the centration would be similar by virtue of their fundamental shared property of targetting E.

And yet we have just seen that the truthy is centration of the One (and its "opposite"), while the falsy is the centration of 0-->1, a movement from the initial to the terminal object. If these two arrows were similar we would have to say that their sources are isomorphic, and therefore that Zero "equals" One. We know very well that when 0 (zero, nothingness) is isomorphic to 1 (one, unity), then the category is degenerate. Claiming that it is not cannot be proven. Consequently, we can say with confidence that the truthy is distinct from the falsish.

Could they, however, be similar, on the grounds of their essential resemblance? The answer must still be no, because T and F are different names of E and different names cannot be categorically similar, even if they sound alike, even if they share the same phonemes, they are different names attached to different elemental connections between the One and the Centered Category.

It is certain then, that if the universe affirms even a single difference, then it is necessary that truthiness and falsiness exist as named arrow-elements of the Category, and secondly that they are neither identical nor similar, but themselves really and truly different.




Seeing as how it is almost dinner-time, we will leave a discussion on the question of negation for next time.


Sunday dinner at PQ's humble abode.



I hope this brief swim into the e-philosophical waters has demonstrated the hella wicked pissah power of PQ Thinking, which aligns with the Great Wind, and is one of the many, many sub-stratii of innovation and pondiferiousness to be found lurking in the Think Tanks ensconsed in the Great Halls of the Vast Underground Library of the Socialist Freedom Party, which is buried deep beneath the Grand Barrier Reef and may be accessed for a nominal fee (waived for those in need) every work day and free on Sundays.

Next time, along with covering the categorical mathematics of e-negation, we will point out how PQ Thinking not only revolutionizes e-mathematics, but every other area of e-science as well, from e-physics and e-social sciences to e-art and e-catastrophe theory.

Until then, stay centrated on your favorite cateogories!


XOXOXOXXOXOX,
PQ







The small part of the SFP's vast underground library devoted to "revolutionary romances".










Freedom Writers

Freedom to Write
Write for Freedom