Here is an original theory in capsule form. Among other things, I maintain that we have the urge to know about what is real, the external world and ourselves, because in nature, quantity has power over Quality. Let me explain.
Before the big bang, Quality was ALL-KNOWING but NOT ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. The absolute Quality was not absolutely perfect because of an opposition that was not quite real but yet existed (within Quality?). This opposite is devious and opportunistic and it is QUANTITY. To reach absolute perfection Quality had to transform quantity, an opposition, into a perfect MEANS while gradually integrating it to itself.
So, the big bang took place. It was the beginning of the journey, a circular journey that will end when absolute perfection is reached. This is when quantity is integrated with quality as one. The big bang consisted in Quality's departure toward quantity, away from itself, a departure from the unique toward the multiple. This departure resulted in an infinite repetition of Quality into units (devalued Quality). This repetition reduced Quality to an "element" of a set. The power of quantity transformed Quality into an insignificant minimum number, a PROPERTY of quantity. Most importantly, Quality lost its knowledge and became helpless. Quantity, on the other hand, became the main reality in this newly formed universe.
The only thing that prevents quantity from totally annihilating Quality is a fundamental order (FO). This order is like a trustee to whom Quality gave all its knowledge before its journey into the darkness of the power of quantity. The FO is like a computerized system that processes and regulates the movements of quantity in regards to Quality. Even our thoughts are entered into this system.
How can we know about this FO? Our rational brain, built by the FO, symbolically presents it as deductive logic. Moreover, one can learn something about the FO but only under the condition of viewing deductive logic in light of two new concepts: Quality and quantity
If deductive logic is the symbol of the FO, then this symbol shows that in nature there are values of goal and means because logic reveals those values. Boolean algebra, the quantitative aspect of logic, is the means that preserves the truth of the argument. On the other hand, the truth of the argument, its preservation from the premise to the conclusion, is the goal of the argument, and this goal is qualitative.
Also, there is an important synthesis in logic. The truth in multiple premises is synthesized into one unique truth in the conclusion. If the devaluation of Quality is the result of its infinite repetition by the power of quantity, then, the synthesis of Quality from many units to one unique whole, means the liberation of Quality from quantity. So, if logic is a symbol of the FO, then the FO not only preserves the devalued Quality. The FO liberates Quality by synthesizing it during self-organization of matter or of life. .
Rationality is the effect of qualitative freedom. To arrive to this conclusion it is necessary to acknowledge that in addition to the Darwinian evolution there is a qualitative evolution that lifted life from primordial slime to the level of rationality. This evolution consisted in the gradual freedom of Quality from quantity.
However, now that the human being is born rational (qualitatively free), he chose to give his freedom up in order to regress back under the power of quantity. Under the power of quantity, a person must accumulate quantitative "self worth" or else be left forgotten in some dark alley. The prevailing quantitative viewpoint also interferes with Quality's freedom by hindering knowledge about Quality (about ourselves). This obfuscation gives scientists the illusion that the quantitative is all the reality there is. Fortunately, in spite this tremendous obstacle, some humans managed to hold on to their liberated "human spirit." And this qualitative aspect of humans when free, advances knowledge (freedom).
...
I would like to explain why I use the word "Quality" to refer to what some philosophers call "substance" when its general meaning is that of a property of a quantity. According to my hypothesis, even though the basic substance is primary, in nature it exists devalued and hidden by quantity
If one assumes a) that in nature there is such a connection between the basic substance and quantity, b) that "nature" is the effect of this relationship, and c) that the inner works of our cognitive functions are dictated by the same nature, then, it is thinkable that our mind's intuitive connection of the concept "quality" to "quantity" reflects the fundamental connection of substance to quantity
So, naming the most fundamental substance "Quality," when only properties of quantities are know by that term, is not an arbitrary decision if a "quality" of something is the effects of an underlying Quality as it devalued by quantity.
Cantor's Intuitive Concept of a Set illustrates the dynamics of how quantity overwhelms Quality.
If each element of Georg Cantor's naive set theory, "the definite, distinguishable objects of our intuition or of our intellect to be conceived as a whole" are identified with Quality, and if the set itself as a collection of these elements is identified with quantity, then, his set theory illustrate the transfer of status from a single entity (Quality,) to a collection of elements.(quantity). As this quantity becomes a new unit larger, it overshadows the identity of the unit that composes it.
Robert Stoll writes the following about Cantor:
According to his definition, a set S is any collection of definite, distinguishable objects of our intuition or of our intellect to be conceived as a whole. The objects are called the elements or members of S.
The essential point of Cantor's concept is that a collection of objects is to be regarded as a single entity (to be conceived as a whole). The transfer of attention from individual objects to collections of individual objects as entities is commonplace, as evidence by the presence on our language of such words as "bunch," "covey," "pride," "and "flock."
A "transfer of attention" from individual objects to collections of individual objects as a new entity is a shift of the status of substance from the Qualitative to the quantitative. This transfer of "attention" is the tendency in the Quality (the unit) to collect in quantity. The set theory illustrates that the element, as individual (as manifestation of Quality) loses its significance of being an independent whole. It becomes a minimum number that belongs to a quantity.
I might add that this process is used by the FO as a means for the preservation and freedom of Quality (as Boolean algebra is a means for the preservation and synthesis of the truth in logic).
The concept "individualism" as generally used, however, does not mean much to me because what drives an individual to act can be either qualitative or quantitative. If we are talking about the freedom of individuals to pursue their quantitative tendencies, I am against it because its effect what is known as "injustice." But, if we are talking about the freedom of qualitatively oriented individuals, I am for it because the effect will be "justice."
My premise is that all things in nature, as well as humans, exist, move, and live according to the fundamental order (FO). According to this order, Quality is the goal, and quantity is the necessary means. However, the fact is that quantity prevails in nature and so it interprets the goal of this FO in its own quantity-oriented terms. It interprets "Quality" as a MINIMUM NUMBER (element of a set). Translated into quantitative terms, the fundamental order becomes the same law of probability as the one ruling in organized gambling. According to this law, only the minimum number wins.
For the quantity-oriented individual, the goal of life is quantitative. So, he sees Quality, himself and others as insignificant MINIMUM NUMBERS (elements of a set). Because Quality's purpose of creating the world was to achieve perfection, every Quality (individual) has the urgency to increase his self-worth. For the quantity-oriented individual, however, quantity is the only reality there is, and so (out of ignorance) he has the urge to accumulate quantitative values in the form of territories, money, or power. When everyone with similar values struggle to get as much quantitative self-worth as possible, a social pyramid results because only the minimum number wins.
The minimum numbers on top of the pyramid are the only ones who enjoy freedom. Those supporting the weight of the ones on top of the pyramid, however, see this as "injustice." In a lottery, the minimum number is the only winner also, while the rest of the participants lose. It is interesting that while no one tries to create a "just" lottery because this effort is obviously senseless, humans out of ignorance about Quality and quantity, still spill a lot of blood in pursuit of "justice." It is time to realize that the so-called injustice is the automatic result of the prevalence of the quantitative viewpoint. No war or revolutions will ever solve it.
For the individual who has a qualitative viewpoint, on the other hand, "Quality" is recognized in each quality-oriented individual. This individual the presence of his goal of life, or Quality, is recognized in each quality-oriented being. His will is identical with the intent of the FO. Because of this, this person is able to legislate his own universal laws, as Kant would say. This gist of this law is the golden rule.
Both the qualitative and the quantitative tendencies result in the formation of groups. However, intrinsically they are very different. The dynamics of a quantity-oriented group is based on fear, cruelty, cowardice, and treason. The human species is one big model of quantity oriented groups.
On the other hand, the dynamics of a quality-oriented group is based on love, compassion, trust, and understanding. Kant's could only visualize a quality-oriented human society and called it "the kingdom of ends. I think that in nature very intelligent animals already practice quite a bit of quality-oriented individualism. Elephant and bonobo societies, for example, are free from internal violence, and they do not have tyrants.
…
If the FO is internal to matter and to life, then it would be reasonable to assume that the self-organization of matter reflects the intent of this FO which is the preservation and freedom of Quality. Within matter and primitive, non-intelligent life, the FO guides the unit by means of quantity (of its body structure,) and its rules. This means that the "intent" is mediated by quantity, and therefore it consists in automatic, very predictable responses to the environment. Therefore one cannot refer to it as being a "will." However, as the nervous system becomes able to allow Quality to manifest itself without mediation by quantity, then rationality appears. Thus, when intelligence increases (evolutionarily speaking) and especially when rationality appears, the will of the individual becomes one and the same with the intent of the FO. Kant would have agreed with this; he said that the rational being is capable of legislating his own universal laws.
...
There is a fundamental difference between a just society with qualitative values and the idea of communism as it was in Russia, for example. The conflict between communism and capitalism is not that of two fundamentally opposite ideas. It is a conflict between rivals striving for the same superficial goal that is quantity.
Money is quantity; it gives power, and it is the aim of capitalism. It gives the individual the hope that he can become rich.
Communism is also about power. Everyone among the masses will be equal, they say. Therefore, the hope is that one will not be exploited; no one will have more power than the other.
However, since both money and power are quantities, and if quantity favors the minimum number of a group, and if it is both deceptive and opportunistic, hopes of riches for all or of equality to "masses" will always turn into disappointment for the majority. Only the organizers and a few lucky ones will be getting what they hoped for. This "unjustice" is simply the logical effect of the quantitative interpretation (by nature) of the FO, and it is as unjust as a lottery is unjust.
Humanity is plagued by many quantity-oriented schemes. Let's not forget about Hitler. He dreamed of a typical quantity-oriented deceptive scheme. He appealed to the "race" which is quantity. The quantity imagined by him was adorned with qualities that belong to the individual. He preferred the fair-look. Quantities always takes possession of characteristics that belong to the individual (opportunistic) just like a pile of red apples (quantity) displays the red color that comes from each apple in the pile.
The solution is not changing the laws of nature. Reorganizing social structures in hope that they will become just is as futile. Just lotteries are not possible. It is a mater of changing viewpoints of the organizer and the organized. An apple cannot change viewpoints, but a rational being can. In all, I do not think that external structures make too much difference. If the individuals that are part of a structure realize that the object to which they devote most of their energy and time is a fake, they will no longer treat is as an end in itself. They will treat it as a useful means. We cannot exist without quantity because it is our indispensable means. |