Axiomatic Identification Arguments :
3/4/2008
Axiomatic identification arguments, an argument based on two or more people assigning different term-identities to the same objects. The bulk of “philosophy”.
Example.
Philosopher 1 : “That is a fork. It’s definitely a fork! The prawns on one end are the part you poke the food with, and the round part is ONLY meant for holding.”
Philosopher 2 : “It’s not a fork, it’s a spoon. The scoopy shape on each side most-clearly is meant for scooping, for ‘spooning’ things up, and no matter what end you hold, it’s still got that natural scoopy type shape, therefor it is always meant to be used for scooping, and it’s a spoon.”
Philosopher 1 : “Philosopher 2, your nonsense could go on for days, but I already clearly provided evidence for why it is clearly NOT a spoon and instead it is ONLY a FORK.”
Philosopher 2 : “Ph 1, You idiot, can’t you even tell what a spoon is when you see it!? Go **** yourself, ******* *****!”
Philosopher 3 : “You are both clearly wrong, and your logic is misguided in all ways. You don’t know what you’re talking about at all. This is not a spoon or a fork, it is a shovel! I know a shovel when I see one, unlike you blind sheep.”
Philosopher 2 : “I’m going to ignore your last ignorant comments, Ph 3, because whether you know it or not, you’re already prooving my point. Shoveling is in fact spooning, and spooning is NOT shoveling.”
Philosopher 4 : “It’s a piece of plastic. I have scientific evidence for this.”
Philosopher 5 : “Plastic doesn’t exist. Plastic isn’t even real. ‘Plastic’ is a word that some people just made up, a fabricated baseless word, when there is no plasticness in the actual so-called ‘plastic’. It’s actually a chemical. The true nature of the thing-in-itself, is a chemical and not a plastic.”
Theist 1 : “Only a fork and a spoon should be used, one of each, together. There should never be an intermixing of spoon and of fork, nor should there be two spoons at the table, nor should there ever be found two spoons in one bowl. God made spoons and forks to be naturally used only in the divinely approved-of way. You should never clean the bottom of your shoe with a spoon, as that would be unclean and a sin. In the Book of God, it was clearly written ‘do not place your spoon in any unclean place, and the spoon either alone or together with one fork must accompany a meal 3 times a day.’ If you ever mix a spoon and a fork, all kinds of sick immoral things could be done. After that, what’s to stop you from poking someone’s eye out with the fork, or using the spoon to scoop up dogshit and put it into a bowl of cerial? There’s all kinds of wrong things a person -could- do with a spoon or a fork if someone deviates away from the natural purpose of each of them.”
Atheist 1 : "Spoons and forks both do not even exist. There’s no such thing as a spoon or a fork.
Non-decotomist 1 : “It’s a spork, a mixture of both spoon and fork.”
Etc.
This never-ending babble could carry on for infinity if the argumentors did not have mortal physical limits of lifespan and patience.
Fly buzzes against window, because of bright sun, but that fly is not too bright.
This whole process of identification and associative quantification also happens in the moral debates, the metaphysical sciences and much more.
Plato : “A spoon is less jagged than a fork, and the spoon’s nature is not to be harmful like a knife or a fork would be, therefor a spoon promotes peace between men, in turn, peace produces virtue, and virtue produces a good society. A spoon is virtueous, but a knife is bad, and a fork is dangerous.”
Caesar : “The fork pierces then seizes the prize. The spoon is too dull.”
Some other turd : “All spoons and forks were created equal. Each one is of equal value.”
Etc.
Now besides one axiomatic identity and quantification/value being immediately claimed then associated with the object or especially and usually with the concept, there are preceeding axioms and identities before this which then “proove” this. “A fork has points. A fork is pointy. A point is pointy.”
A ‘successful’ identification aswel as a successful logic, is part of the interacting chain sequencies of mental fluxuation, peaks in the sensations of awareness which lead up to a web of “moments”, which are seen as places and objects. The pain and shock of damage, the pangs of hunger, the pleasure rushes of mating and feeding, each also exist as peaks in the sense-awaress of the animal, and a chemically altered state of biology exists at these peak moments of chemical fluxuation which each effect the neurosystem. This chemical assignment, an altered state during a particular kind of event along with a sense experience, was the forefather of logical identification, altered conditions being produced between one type of stimulative interaction and another, so that the primodial differenciation of chemistry eventually produced the phenomenon of knowledge. Either that, or knowledge is just a more complex expression of the foundational mechanisms of differenciation based on chemical reactions and the memories of these phases.
The result : “This is this, because of this, because of this, because of this.” A self-similar kind of mental process : Proof based upon proof, and proof being body interaction. The sensation of something being real, is the same as touch, pain, pleasure, and this sense reaction, combined with a network of mental peaks of experience, leads to the idea that knowledge is an expression of reality, that certain ideas [aswel as feelings] are directly real.
In this system of proof being based on proof, interaction based on first impressions, a form of sensationalism, thoughtless, subliminal impulsive reactions to stimulations, etc. In this system, the sensation that something is true or real immediately exists like any other inner force pressing up against each cell and moving through the whole body. Knowledge and thought are based on thoughtless ignorant chemicals. Logic and reasoning are based not on how true one idea is compared to another, but instead on how one chemical or complex structure truly effects and reacts with another. Therefor mind and ideas are entirely a social phenomenon, a part of the whole process of one catalyst interacting with another.
A good or bad philosophical argument, is generally an expression of either good or bad biology. A scattered and unusual body chemistry is what produces strange and abnormal types of ideas. The effect that drugs have on the mind, the direct relation between substance and thought, shows that all ideas are actually objects, the information which only can exist after matter inter-reacts with matter, so that every idea is actually an interaction of real structures. Without any inter-reacting substance, there cannot be a thought or a mind. Without the actual voice structure and mouth, there will be no words. Good ideas are produced by some level of a healthy body, an exact inner process of real substances, and not a mystical imaginary free-will choosing enough to be morally correct and logically ‘sane’.
Although the axiom, if taken literally, is not substantial, it exists between the atoms, between and because of the inter-reaction of substances. Thoughts on some level of their active process, exist like chemical bonds, rays of light, waves of radiation, and vibrations of sound. An active idea is none-other than energy-interaction.
Meanwhile, there is no shortage of human contention over what is held as true and what is held as untrue.
1 : “#2, You’re an ass.”
2 : “No I’m not, you dick.”
1 : “You’re such an ass.”
3 : “You’re a spoon and he’s a fork.”
1 : “No, you’re an ass, #3, and so is #2, you’re both asses.”
Any sense of who and what someone “is”, that is based on such axiomatic identity. The sheer number of binary “yes” and “no” chemical signals are what determine the truth of the matter. The strength of belief is based on how much energy supports each structure, therefor ideas and sensations that acquire the most energy, are most memorable, most “universal” amoung animals, oriented with the process of survival, which is the constant structural exactitude leading to the acquisition of more active energy for more structure. Because of this process of “true” and “false” being based on sheer techical force, there’s no other way that the body can “proove” anything, other than by direct energy. And so, because energy is made of and based on more energy, so too is proof based upon and made out of more proofs.
The mental behavior and nature of each person is a direct expression of physics, of physicality, real materials and real energy. Nature is based on more nature, and the ISness of structural condition comes from how each part inter-reacts with the other, because being is a form of becoming, an active non-static process based on energy.
Basically, you’re a fork. You might be a spoon, but, you’re probably a fork.
That’s the truth of it, right there.
