Friday, 15 August 2014

Basis for Power to Be Free

The simplest way to have a self, I think, should be to have exactly one I category and one others category. That is one could have an initial expectation built on usage of exactly two categories. I say that is can sort of be the extremely basic way of tending for the self that there can be.

Such categorisation into only two expected categories yields evasive dismissal of what there is in using one category, leaving a semi-complete care-for-all (i.e. oneness) ability in only the other one. This happens because of negligence and/or ignorance. The second category can stand for those one ignore or avoid caring for, while a first one stands for those one care for. Doing this with total dogmatism is very simple-minded and dogmatic. In fact, using only two categories like that probably would have to mean total and simple-minded egotism, too much even for the self to survive, I suspect.

The evil and simplicity of this can be, however, and is in our ordinary personal beings, I think, counteracted by being more or less anti-dogmatic about it, perhaps by dismissing such dismissal, which can probably be done in more than one basic way. One way is to dismiss it for the sake of completing the oneness (which takes three categories). The other type is to dismiss it for the sake of another categorization structure. This mathematically becomes the number of categories to that structure, that number, to the power of two. This is so because the structures are different, just as addition is different from multiplication. That is, in very simple contexts, in an immediate sense, one needs to spite the addition in order to yield the multiplication, sort of. Below, I try to exemplify this second type of structure-based spite against using two basic dissociation categories. If you follow this link, I have tried to describe an example of three spiting two, which implies both types of spite against plain two-category structures.

The way I view things, usage of two to a power of two, i.e. four, categories (which I believe tends to yield dismissal of dismissal for the sake of dismissal  -  in a way that leaves some, but not all dismissal free from being dismissed, i.e. achieving a balanced dismissal, I think) is anti-dogmatic in a good sense. It becomes that by being about more or less conflicting causes as equally worth it. They thus never quite subdue one another, which I think would be the ordinary quality of a simple two-category dissociation of causes. Instead, they simply subdue the blatant nature of one another, and thus (since in order to subdue any basic and total two categorical dismissal tendency, one must subdue general possibility of dismissing so totally) subdue generally such tendencies of total blatancy of dismissal. It follows that the anti-totality of dismissal cannot easily be totally dismissed, but that there is in its nature to stand for modesty that hardly can be beat totally.

About four-categorical thoughts or notions (or so), I believe it yields itself to enough humility to the components of discrimination for them to change, basically into a belief (or perhaps a meme), which doesn't discriminate blindly, but instead discriminates only enough to be separate from all and everything. That is, I believe that with such discrimination of humility, one can state one's beliefs without there being any problem of trying to be too powerful, which there (at least sort of, I think) is with only a two-category thought. Still there is the potential to keep on discriminating, though softly, for as long as that four is there at all, I think. Probably, I think (but I feel less sure of it, though), there must also be that very same constellation of twos there, for the same belief to be presented in a good enough way. But, I believe, in the four itself, there's not the notion of an entity, just two entities of discrimination that happen to interact together to form something that can (I think) be defined as a belief.

Making this humility keep on functioning can be found in an essence of a meaning step, from it (from four to five, and then perhaps also from five to seven and so on, if you've understood what I've written were the link leads to). Five, the first meaning step from four, is very much about integrity and stands for a personal interest  -  or perhaps rather a spirit of enthusiasm for a belief  -  or so. Such an enthusiasm can, I believe, disguise itself as libido, or so, I think. This it is especially good at when anchoring a tendency of homogeneity, to its first meaning step. As can be seen from all the links (leading to my own accounts on the issue), the topic has been discussed further elsewhere  -  and I will thus not discuss it further here.

Back to basics, it seems likely for me that a belief (four categories)   -  or to some extent to a spirit of belief (five categories; one meaning step from belief)  -  tends to alternate between experiences, which can form the notion of the belief, (or spirit) of it, as actual about more than one context. The experiences are thereby both in there each by itself, but still somehow can represent the attitudes of one another. This can more or less, I think, fool everyone into believing someone capable enough of such alternation not quite inclined to do something that person does do, because the double nature of the belief. Such trickery I can find to be an alternation females are more capable of than men, because females have it in their X-chromosome structures (X inactivation, which I think I have discussed a little here). But, anyway, to the extent that a belief has a second meaning step to it, upon the one that yields its spirit or so, what that second meaning step yields can  -  I feel  -  be called the soul of that belief. Such a second step changes the affect on an experience from being into an alternation as described above to being a real mixture of experiences. Even so, though, if one has, for example, an experience of a personal memory then a belief held about it can alternate one's way of viewing that memory, so that it doesn't tend to be overly dogmatic, I think. reasons described

The above-described four-based heterogeneity is a heterogeneity of cause not to be confused with heterogeneity of interpretation, which pertains to eight and is described below. It is, I think, by use of both these types of heterogeneity that one can be a person, in that one can have one's personality in the notions that form in the structures of would-be contradictions. It is thereby that personality is anti-dogmatic. It is from there one can yield ones freedom of thought.

If one adds yet another factor of two to a four (or a five), thus yielding an eight (or ten) then we have a version of spite, against using three categories this time. Since the eight (or so) always has a factor of four (or so), it always involves a potential for (or so), as is described on this post. But, even so, the new two insinuates discrimination-based spite against what three stands for. However, this type of discrimination yields also that three categories will always sort of be insinuated, by that eight is the third type of composite categorization structure, after four and six, which are the first and second, respectively. I.e. three of the categories there are to an eight is the same type of categorization structure as eight itself. This yields that three anchors the meaning series that stars at eight, the meaning series of heterogeneity of interpretation.

I seems, then that it thus has a natural connection to three and thus an essence of relying upon it, which means, I think, that it gets flimsy (or so) without it, I think. This balances out, I believe, that the structure of an eight is probably into that a two shouldn't relate to three categories as good to have in the three sense, because of the three twos in its structure having to relate to each other in another sense. If I'm right, then eight can thereby stand for anti-dogmatism of justice without having to risk justice very much at all, but still provide one with the possibility of escape from too much dogmatism of justice.

To the extent that the heterogeneity of interpretation does not pertain to being consistently into that it matters that it pertains to three in being the third composite-type category structure, there is also something else that tends much to soften it from becoming very dangerously spiteful. This is that there actually is another, more effective, even, way of yielding an extra set of two categories to a four. This is by use of the spiritual competence of supporting the soul with that the spirit should  -  necessarily  -  not be determined for the simple two-factor, but instead should only use it to exemplify itself, basically. Such spiritual competence is described by a seven-category structure.

No comments:

Post a Comment