Chaos and Analysis

Currently reading:
Prose Edda of Snorri Sturlson
   trans. by Jean I. Young

I've been thinking about chaos theory recently, and I was wondering how it fits with my recent statements on logic. Paleolithnick had also suggested the relevance to my thoughts a while back on free will, a topic which I may well cover when I return to the "Defense of LFW" series (it will come back eventually, really, I need to get the paper in readable form by October 5th. And I'll return to the statements about causation and whether it affects logical analysis at some point as well; maybe in a year or two).

I'm going to make some rough-hewn suggestions which may send my inner mathematician into seizures, but he can work them out more later if it bothers him that badly. I'm going to be pulling at too characteristics of chaotic systems. The first has to do with the lack of predictability. This is due to two things: first, sensitivity to initial conditions. This means that no matter how close you get to the starting point of the system, if you're not exact, you'll get arbitrarily far away as time goes on. This in itself isn't the only issue; a simple exponential or even quadratic function does the same thing. However, one can at least get a feel for the function and try again in those cases, and determine how far off one started by how the ending looks. A chaotic system twists and turns on itself so much that one can get completely lost in it, without any idea of how on- or off-target one is. Further, while if you come at the system in some directions it remains stable, if you come at it in other directions it is unstable. An example of this could be the climate; some changes to it will be canceled out, others will balloon, and if pushed passed certain boundaries, it'll completely change. If you come at it from an unstable direction, things'll go haywire and you're prediction will be nothing like the real thing.

However, despite this inability at being able to predict the system at an analytical level, the system displays macro-level regularities. These are called "strange attractors." More or less, if you look at the graph of a chaotic system, you can see a pretty picture rather than a tangled ball of yarn. An example would again be found in weather patterns: we can't predict the weather with that much accuracy, and while we can improve we'll never be able to look too far in advance, but at the same time we have seasons. I don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow, but we are entering fall.

So, in sum, low-level analytical details, if they don't start at the right place, can (and most likely will) create an overall picture of the world that is wrong in all of what it has to so. Further, getting closer to the right answer doesn't necessarily mitigate this, and the starting point is also the most controversial point in a well-formed argument. However, even if we can't get at the details very well, by looking at the different trajectories of different theories, we can see broad patterns arising. These patterns then exist, even if they themselves are not analyzable. All of this assuming that we are in a chaotic system, whatever that might mean, or that our epistemological position is analogous in appropriate ways to chaotic systems.

Another Blog

In case anyone simply checks this instead of my Xanga as well, I'm starting up a new blog devoted to writing. I want to do more expression of myself, separate from philosophy and prosaic accounts of my life, but I feel rather unskilled. As such, I would greatly appreciate comments, including positive (I need at least a little ego boost every now and then), but especially critical (I'm mostly concerned with becoming skilled, and I haven't done much creative writing since high school). I'm using Xanga for the time being as it'll hopefully be easier to join a community than with Blogger; if this doesn't work, I'll switch it over to a Blogger account. So, without further ado, visit http://www.xanga.com/candlelitmuse, or simply add candlelitmuse to your Xanga subscriptions.

Stuff

The semester is in full swing now. I'm TAing again, though without grading papers; I just have to meet with groups in the Intro to Philosophy class who will be giving presentations, to make sure they know what they're talking about and have some sort of way of presenting it which can result in a decent grade. It's not a paid position, but it does yield credit toward graduation.

I also am about ready to turn in my thesis proposal. My more specific thesis topic now is a study of D.T. Suzuki's presentation of Zen, and more recent criticisms of it (especially insofar as they run against his claims to be an enlightened Zen practioner, and hence above dualistic thinking, in which he nonetheless indulges in the forms of nationalism and a reverse orientalism (e.g. The East is spiritual, intuitive, and what not, and the West is mechanistic and analytic and this is all bad).)

In other news, I feel like I've made a breakthrough in my own life. I've been feeling like I have to know the truth, that this is of vital importance, but that at the same time to know anything one must know everything. How many arguments which look watertight can be blown apart with a single observation? So this put me in the not-too-comfortable position of only being able to do a less bad job rather than to actually do a good one, but where not trying at all is worse.

But, going off of some stuff I posted 2 posts ago (on logic and mysticism), with some help from William James (thanks, Scott), I've been able to turn around my view of the world. It is now for me a place of wonder and exploration; if views can be more or less insightful as practical partitions of reality, but none of them is completely true*, then I don't have to worry about getting it all right, but there still is benefit to understanding.

The problem is, this probably puts me outside of conservative Christianity. Not that I would consider myself a liberal, mind you; I just think that the mental demands which many conservative strands of Christianity make are unrealistic when actually followed through to their conclusion (at very least for the average person, though maybe even moreso for the scholar). As I was writing about in the one poem below, it almost makes a virtue out of gambling with your future and the message which you pass on to others. Trying to hold to all of those beliefs without closing my eyes to the realities in the world was itself the root cause for me of turbulence, frustrations, and impatience with others; if the fruit has anything to do with the tree, that can't be what faith is about.

Poetry Break

Currently reading:
Phantastes
   by George MacDonald

I'll probably regret this in the morning (I think that I regret half the things written late at night), but I feel like posting some stuff I've been writing on the blog. So, here goes.

The raucous cacophony of shouts, screams
Rushing on, overlapping, ripping apart their prey
The onslaught surrounds the lone victim
Defending himself, he joins the crusade

What's your answer?  Choose your side
Flip your coin, roll the die
Lady virtue walks off with the man of fortune
As muddied pilgrims while away in the stocks.

Are you with us or for us?
For any value of "us"
Ignorance is bliss, peace, faith, hope and love
Those who seek shall find only hell

Close your eyes and count to 10
Take a deep breath, it'll all be over
Strength comes from falling limply off the fence
Those who toil in the midst of battle are wimps

Aristotle said it, so it must be so
You must either say yes or no
Don't bother knocking, just open some door
Don't ask, only seize

Like a flowing, rushing torrent
Breaking on the banks and rocks
Swirling, twisting, whirling chaos
Flecks of white flung high above
Precious river-life lost to earth
And then the sea
Vast, open, serene
And free

On Logic

I must say that I tend to waffle between logical and mystical modes, and I'm finding more comfort from the mystical right now. Of course, this requires some justification (at least, I have to justify it to myself), so here's my presentation of my thoughts on logic, and a relation between reason and experience.

In order for the rules of logic to apply, we must have a ontology of individuals; that is, things which are undivided in themselves (for the rule of identity to hold) and which are divided from everything else (for the rule of non-contradiction). Now, it is precisely this ontology which is denied in the strands of thought which claim to surpass logic. I would suggest that an ontology of individuals does not properly account for causation (things wouldn't really be divided from everything else) or for change (things wouldn't really be undivided in themselves).

Of course, theories which talk about things in terms of individuals seem to work, and logic just seems so necessary.* This would be because we can make practical distinctions, and within that practical world logic holds. I can say that the table in front of my exists. Now, if it were to really exist as an individual, then we would need to face the problem of providing boundaries for it (are the molecules from the air bouncing off of it right now and forming quickly-broken electrical bonds part of the table? Where is the point of separation between table and floor? Is that little piece hanging off the edge really part of the table? What about the sorites paradox, e.g. if we cut off molecules from the table, at what point does it stop being this table?). I personally think this problem is insurmountable, and even if the boundary problem is solvable, there is still Trenton Merrick's overdetermination argument (given in Objects and Persons). But practically for my present purposes, I can pick out a table and I can pick out a chair; given this, the table is not the chair, but is itself. The fact that the distinction is practical does not completely make it anti-real: the chair and table may not be individuals, but the very fact that I can make the practical distinction is due to the way reality is. Reality still is, and it is still ordered, just not in a way which lets us grab a hold of it for more than the present moment.**

So it is prima facie possible that the ontology of the real world is such that it cannot (ultimately) be parceled out into the individuals which logic requires. Another problem comes up in the inner realm: what to do when realm and experience/feeling/intuition collide? I would say that in my life, I've been finding that the answer comes in realizing both that this usually ends up being an indication that my reasoning is wrong, but also that my interpretation of the experience is wrong. The experience is like a pain I feel on my arm: the pain doesn't tell me what sort of wound I have, how I got it, whether I was justified in getting it, and so on. It does tell me, however, that I need to do something about it; rationally telling myself that pain doesn't exist is going to cause problems. Likewise, in philosophy and theology, one shouldn't simply follow one's feelings, because these feelings don't really say whether a doctrine is true or false; only the interpretations of the feelings do. However, if I feel uncomfortable with a doctrine, I ignore this discomfort at my peril. I see too much theology done from the standpoint of "it rationally works out, so it doesn't matter how we feel; let's just keep trucking." I'm not so confident of any of our reasoning abilities to completely ignore other signs that we may need to keep looking.

---

* - Aristotle would be the best philosopher of individuals of whom I can think, and so he would deserve a post explaining how he fits into all of this. Perhaps another time._Back

** - Yes, I'm sure that there needs to be some way of working out self-reference there. I guess that will be in a sequel post as well._Back

Struggles and Skepticism

Currently reading:
On Christian Teaching
   by St. Augustine

Ok, so I'm going to put down some of my current intellectual struggles right now, and hopefully someone can help me with them. I've written a few times about my frustration with the church, and doctrines such as perspicuity of Scripture. Here's my overall problem (similar to the case with the perspicuity of Scripture post): It seems that Protestantism needs perspicuity of Scripture and sola Scriptura in order to stand up (basically, what I mean by that is that a person can pick up Scripture and get the important bits without this reading being mediated by a specific tradition). The problem is, while I can see ways in which these doctrines could work, I still can't see the basis for them. They seem to be thrown out there because we Protestants need them, but I don't accept pragmatic arguments like that for establishing truth. So, I need a basis, but I don't see one.

Without this basis, I have a hard time holding to Protestant views of justification and sanctification. Yes, many Protestant scholars make good cases for Protestant views. Many RC and EO scholars, though, have read the same passages and don't even find them troubling. This at least makes me suspicious of Protestant claims, especially when at seminary I keep reading bad expositions of them (not that all are bad; I remember that Seifrid's Christ, Our Righteousness was pretty good, and I enjoy reading N. T. Wright, but the latter doesn't toe the traditional evangelical on the pertinent issues and the former leaves frustratingly vague how we go about living in Christ). I'm not a Bible scholar, don't have time to look up all of the heated exegetical debates, and am deeply skeptical about being able to get anywhere in those debates if one actually listens to all sides (a feature commonly lacking in theological discussions of any kind, which further deepens my despair because a person who can't understand the view of another is probably simply reading her own view into Paul). Add to this that the more I read Paul, the easier I find it to read "faith," "grace," and "works" against certain dominant Protestant interpretations, and the problem only grows thicker.

Given that I'm still struggling to get good answers to the grounding of Protestantism, I'm leaning more and more toward converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Other options seem to be liberalism/post-modernism, which can be non-institutional without that firm doctrinal foundation, and Roman Catholicism. The former is attractive, especially since I don't want to have to submit to anyone (I am far too arrogant), but then I'm left wondering if I'm doing much more than Hick is talking about in Interpretation of Religion. Catholicism would be attractive because I wouldn't hear the "m" word ("mystery") thrown about nearly as freely as in Protestantism or EO, and it doesn't have quite the same anti-intellectual bias at the popular level that conservative versions of the other churches tend to have. However, I do think that the Reformation had too many good points against the Catholic church to have been unjustified in their schism, and a church which justifies a schism against it has a huge mark against it.

This, of course, would be a huge step, but the frustations with Protestantism don't seem to be going away, and I'm having trouble getting the answers I need. Of course, now I have another issue. I'm becoming more and more convinced that I need to do something, even I don't know what that something is yet. But then, anything I do will upset other people who will be quite profoundly affected because they either a) simply want what is familiar and comfortable, and can't be bothered to reflect on the underlying issues, or b) come to snap judgments on everything and can ever see anything from another point of view. To what extent would I be selfish if I were to make such a change? To what extent do I have a duty to the truth, even if that hurts others close to me and involve my forcing my will upon them? Worse, it's not like I can ever have certainty about anything, so what do I do when I'm caught between shutting up that voice of conscience inside me for the sake of another (and thus ignoring what is most valuable), and possibly leading them astray by force due to what I consider to be right? And how the Niflheim is there supposed to be any peace in any of this?

If conservative protestantism is true, then how are holding on to faith and struggling to find the truth in order to believe it (so as to know what faith even is) not the hardest works which one could have to do? I hear the refrain of "just have faith" or its variations again and again, but I need to know what faith even is. What do I have faith in? How do I have faith? How can I have this faith before knowing what it is in order to have faith that I will have faith, and know that I will know whatever truth I need? How do I have any sort of peace while waiting for this faith? It's not like I can simply do nothing and wait for God, because there is no such thing as doing nothing. I also desperately need some purpose in life, I so badly need some sort of spiritual satisfaction and have needed it for so long, that I am convinced that something needs to be done; if that's not where God is leading me, then quite honestly I can't really trust his leading any more because he's doing nothing to help me move away from it. The old way simply isn't working, and I'm so very tired of rationalizing.