History of Strategic Thought
What is philosophy?
Philosophy is a different answer if it is the first question to the answer given later.
So can I have the later answer first?
Okay, you can have one of the later answers first. Philosophy is the invention of a person called Socrates which became popular as a tradition of intellectual development among the european civilisation.
Is there no other philosophy to the one invented by Socrates?
There is no modern philosophy other to the one invented by Socrates. To the extent that we have philosophy from before the invention of it by Socrates we have some different thing. Before Socrates philosophy did not exist or alternatively what philosophy did exist before Socrates did not exist after Socrates.
And are there no schools of philosophy other to the one invented by Socrates?
Yes, there are the schools of other civilisations that have taken the invention of philosophy by Socrates and applied it to their own wisdom teachings.
So did they not exist before Socrates?
No, philosophy did not exist before Socrates. The wisdom teachings of various schools from the different civilisations existed before Socrates, though that is not the same as philosophy.
Then there is a difference between philosophy and the wisdom teachings?
Yes. The wisdom teachings and philosophy are not the same thing. For example, mathematics can be considered as one of the knowledge bases of the wisdom teachings and need have no reference to philosophy.
What about religion?
Is Buddhism religion?
I don't know.
Is the magical belief of agricultural communities religion?
To them it is.
And are Buddhism and the magical belief of agricultural communities philosophy?
Yes, no and maybe.
Okay. They are not philosophy. Philosophy is the invention of a person called Socrates which became popular as a tradition of intellectual development among the european civilisation.
Is philosophy something to do with intellect?
Yes. Philosophy is the school of intellect. As such it different to religion which is the school of spirit. And it is different to the wisdom teachings which are the school of knowledge. Philosophy therefore exists below religion as intellect must serve spirit, and it exists outside of wisdom since intellect must be independent of knowledge, and it exists alongside perception since sense and reason each inform the other, and it exists above will, since intellect must direct action.
What is the philosopher's stone?
It is the name given by alchemists to the evolved fruit of the work of alchemy.
Is it anything to do with philosophy?
Alchemy is to do with philosophy as one of the occult traditions that many central philosophers within the tradition are similarly students of alchemy.
Is alchemy nonsense?
No, alchemy is encrypted such that the information obtained outside is nonsense.
Encrypted by whom?
Encrypted by philosophers.
What about the other occult traditions?
The primary occult traditions that are relevant to philosophy are alchemy, magic, wizardry, sorcery, heuristic, kabbala and magick.
Why is that?
Because the same people who control philosophy also study the above named traditions.
Is philosophy anything to do with the craft?
Yes, because craft is one of the matters that Socrates originally directed the attention of philosphy towards.
What is the difference between craft and the craft?
Craft is given here as an ordinary level of knowledge of some specialist subject. That is, while the knowledge may not be common to all, because the subject is some specialist matter, the level of knowledge is only ordinary. And the specialist matter can be of diverse kind, whether building wooden sailing boats or needlework, weaving and tapestry. Craft then has to be understood in terms of a threefold, that is, craft, art and science. Where craft is an ordinary level of knowledge in regard to a specialist subject such as needlework, then art is a professional level of knowledge of the cardinal articulations of the same subject. Cardinal is used here in the sense of principle points and articulations is used in the sense of jointed connecting areas between the cardinals. Therefore art is in particular the knowledge of principle points and connecting joints between them in regard to some craft. When the subject of craft and art is given a normative in regard to theory and method such that the theory and method are common to most who practice the craft then that is called science.
The difference between craft and the craft is that which is obtained when the original subject matter is detached from the ordinary knowledge of the cardinal articulations, theory and method of the specialist subject. This is easily understood in regard to needlework, weaving and associated skills. Where the artist level of knowledge of the particular craft involves an alteration in the thought patterns of the person who has the given knowledge, such that the adjustment in thought patterns learned through the craft is obtained as a possession.
What does this have to do with "quality" ?
Quality as understood in philosophy has several different meanings. Aristotle defines quality in two different ways, neither of which exactly coincides with the meaning that is alluded to by Socrates. And Socrates does not necessarily specifically define quality in the way that Aristotle provides definitions. For this reason, the subject matter of quality as understood within the school tradition of philosophy has typically remained one of the mysteries.
So quality is something to do with philosophy?
Yes it is one of the things that philosophy finds mysterious.
Can you explain it?
"Quality is the measurable relationship between subject and object."
If that is the definition of quality, then why is it a mystery?
Because it does not exist. And since it does not exist, it is a mystery. That is, given any some object, quality can not be discovered in the object. Given any subjective perceiver, quality cannot be discovered in the subjective perceiver. Only when some object and subjective perceiver coincide in the event continuum does quality exist. Furthermore, given the same object and a different subjective perceiver the measure of quality will adjust. And given a different object and the same subjective perceiver the measure of quality will adjust. So whilst we know that it is there, we cannot categorise it either with our sense perceptors nor with our reasoning intellect.
Does philosophy explain this?
No perhaps not. One of the reasons for this document is to offer an idea of what philosophy does, and the reason for what philosophy does not do.
How do you mean?
If philosophy is the school of intellect then the nature, purposes, structure, form and function of philosophy are geared towards that rather than anything else. And since the intellect is of a kind unique to itself, then the discipline for intellect is peculiar to its nature. Meaning that philosophy does not do what people may want it to do if what people want it to do is different to the purpose for its own existence. For that reason, philosophy is commonly accused of not providing answers that explain some question.
Then what does philosophy do?
It provides a domain of discourse within which intellect can be directed towards the understanding of any matter to which it would attend. In doing so it makes the possibility that the given matter can be answered by the professional in any craft, art or science once the intellect has understood the matter.
Can you give a specific example using the matter of quality detailed earlier.
Yes, intellect understands it is one of the mysteries. And therefore that the answer to the mystery of quality belongs to the domain of the mystery teachings rather than to philosophy. For this reason, philosophy does not explain the answer to the mystery of quality although it does clarify what quality can be understood to be in reference towards. The catch is that if philosophy were to explain the mystery of quality in the manner detailed, then it would no longer be doing philosophy it would be doing whatever the mysteries are.
You make the distinction between subject and object. Is that a matter of philosophy?
Yes, in the sense that at a deeper structural level than philosophy a divide exists that manifests itself in various ways at the level of philosophy. And one of the ways that the divide manifests itself at the level of philosophy is as the difference between subject and object.
Can you make it plainer.
Okay. However, the method I would find easier is to provide a specific answer that is definitive and that uses specific terms that can be found in philosophy. Once the answer is understood, then it proves its adequacy by how well it corresponds to each of the areas where the divide manifests itself.
What is that specific answer?
It is to provide a definition for three attitudes. The attitudes are empiricism, idealism and rationalism. All three attitudes can exist within any one person, in the sense that any person can take any one of the attitudes at any particular time and also can deliberately choose to change their attitude from one to the other. Taken together the three attitudes are definitive and with understanding they can demonstrate either that the deeper divide does not in fact exist in the way it seems to, or alternatively that if the deeper divide does exist, it is because it is supposed to.
Do your definitions of the three attitudes correspond to those given in philosophy?
It is a puzzle. The three attitudes exist. The definitions exist. Philosophy talks about the three attitudes and the definitions. Whether the three attitudes, three definitions and the conversation about them all coincide is rather doubtful. For that reason it does require astuteness on the part of the enquirer. Without astuteness the enquirer can obtain useful information but they will not be able to obtain any deep knowledge or understanding. With astuteness then the enquirer can easily adjust the information provided in philosophy in such a way that the attitudes, definitions and understanding all become a definitive knowledge.
Can you give a similar example.
Yes, we can talk about the knower, the knowing and the known. This is a very old idea from before the time of Socrates. If we define the three positions of the person who knows, the activity of knowing and the thing that is known then it is clear that the three things cannot be divided. Yet even though they cannot be divided, we make the distinction between knower, knowing and known, therefore they are divided.
And does that correspond to the three attitudes?
No it does not. It seems to correspond to the three attitudes, but that is only if we always take what we do not understand and group it together with any similar thing that we do not understand. Since we do not understand in either case then we say that the two things are correspondent. But they are not. They are similar.
How do you explain the three attitudes?
As a matter of priority. Or in terms of precedence given to one of only a few possible alternatives. Or of a decision as to the correct placement of value. Or as a choice in regard to where reality exists.
Empiricism is precedence given to matter, object and sense perception. It is to place value in the field of the known. It is to say that reality exists in the physical object before anywhere else.
Rationalism is precedence given to mind, reason and thought. It is to place value in the field of the knower. It is to say that reality exists in the mental thought processes before anywhere else.
Idealism is precedence given to event, continuum and the coincidence of mind with object. It is to place value in the field of the knowing. It is to say that reality exists in the conjunction of reason with sense perception.
And how does that then relate to philosophy?
Well, given the definitions provided, philosophy has available a large matter that exhaustively details the entirety of the given attitudes, even though the attitudes as given are not necessarily exactly the same as those given in philosophy. What I mean is that where empiricism is used in philosophy as a term it may not be defined in the same way in every use of the same term. And also that for example empiricism may be placed conceptually against realism or phenomenalism or some other concept. For this reason it is important to clarify my use of the same terms.
That is empiricism, rationalism and idealism are three attitudes that are together definitive of a subject. There is no fourth attitude. And it is not possible to reduce to only two attitudes. And in regard to placement against other attitudes they place only against the other two.
Can you expand on how the three attitudes are to be understood?
Yes, once the above definitions are detailed it is then possible to associate various areas as required to any one of the three attitudes.
Empiricism then is sense perception. It uses induction and analogy. It is the basis of all mechanical science. It directs its attention to the truth of first propositions. It has a mechanical engineering orientation and also the physical, chemical and biological studies. It directs its attention towards the physical. It says object exists. It believes in matter.
Rationalism is reasoning mind. It uses deduction and mathematics. It is the basis of all theoretical knowledge. It directs its attention to the truth of argument from first propositions. It has an accademic theoretical orientation and also the metaphysical imaginative studies. It directs its attention towards the idea and the reason. It says thought exists. It believes in the understanding.
Idealism is active agent. It uses signlabel and symbol. It is the basis of all writing, language and numeric model. It directs its attention to the appropriateness of model between the theory and practice. It has an artistic orientation and also music, drama and dream. It directs its attention towards the space between empirical and rational or the location at which the two polarities coincide. It is the study of the reasoning mind in regard to corresponding sense object best understood through geometry, algebra and symbolic notation. It says idea exists. It believes in magic.
Does that answer the mind body question?
On its own it does not. That is because the mind body question by its nature is a topological mathematical problem. Since the mathematics of topology are a specific problem, then if the mind body question is a matter of topology then it is not easily answered by nature of that fact.
Can you clarify that point?
Yes, the matter of the mind body problem is one that any student of philosophy must be puzzled by because it asks whether the identity of the person who asks the question is a mind or a body. It forces mistake in the enquirer who asks the question, because they can not detach their own identity and existence from any possible answer they may give. For that reason it is considered a topological mathematical problem.
What is the mind body problem?
Essentially the question many ask, which philosophy attends to is: "Who is that?, who are you?, who am I?" These are all a matter of identity and non-identity. Because the answer to any person is in each case unique, it makes the question difficult to answer in the singular. The way to do so is to change "Who?" to "What?". When we apply what? to the identity of person we raise the mind body problem. So now we have the question "What is that, what are you, what am I" all as applied to the identity of person. Since the answer to what? is common to each of those who ask the question it is easier to answer.
How does the question "What am I?" relate to the mind body problem?
Well the matter itself notices the difference between empiricism and rationalism. But it makes the matter of the difference refer to the individual person. That is we notice empirically object exists. We notice rationally mind is evident in some objects and not in others. We that do the noticing would seem to have mind where other objects do not. And we notice that whether we have mind or do not have mind, we are object. So the question raised is how does self as mind coincide with self as object, and also how does self as mind coincide with other as mind or object, and also how does self as object coincide with other as mind or object.
Can the mind body problem be answered?
Perhaps not. What can be answered is the question "What am I?". The reason we probably can not answer the mind body problem is because we would always provide a provincial answer. That is, we would provide an answer that satisfies the limited provincial nature of our own identity and fails to satisfy any who did not fit that provincial pattern.
How do we answer the question "What am I?"
You are an active agent with the capacity for rational thought operational in a spacetime continuum that presents phenomena to your sense perceptors as object manifesting change.
Philosophy can provide structure that adequately reflects the truth of the above answer in terms of a transparent model. The use of the given abstract model in its diverse applications would tend to be some other discipline not philosophy.
The model is given as -
Empirically, five external sense perceptions: Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory, Gustatory.
Rationally, five internal vehicles for thought: Imagination, Intuition, Emotion, Inspiration, Discernment.
Ideally, five logical levels: Perception, Behaviour, Thought, Narrative, Identity.
As given, the model is abstract and without deviation towards any particular bias. It is a necessity that the use of the model would require adjustment towards the bias of any particular application of itself.
You talked in terms of the tradition of philosophy. Is it possible to detail what that tradition is specifically?
Yes, we can do so in terms of twenty five specific individual people. In this way we can prove an unbroken line of european intellectual development that is initiated by the philosophy of Socrates, and where each named person individually would agree with the given names of those previous to themselves. Those people are named:
1.Socrates, 2.Plato, 3.Aristotle, 4.Virgil, 5.Marcus Aurelius, 6.Augustine, 7.Charlemaine, 8.Dante, 9.Raymond Lull, 10.Leonardo Da Vinci,
11.Galileo, 12.Johannes Kepler, 13.Rene Descartes, 14.Spinoza, 15.Immanuel Kant, 16.John Locke, 17.George Berkeley, 18.Ben Franklin, 19.Edmund Husserl,
20.Bertrand Russell, 21.Ludwig Wittgenstein, 22.Jean-Paul Sartre, 23.Carl Jung, 24.Jean Baudrillard, 25.Jacques Derrida.
It is a matter of identity, narrative and thought. As given, those specific twenty five names provide an identity. The identity provides a narrative. And the narrative is the ideas of the thoughts of the specific identity.
What are the three levels of philosophy?
The first is to direct the attention towards the matter of philosophy, that being: Place, Duration, Movement, Change, Object, Phenomena, Being, Event, Identity, Mind and other related areas.
The second is to direct the attention towards the written work of the philosophers who have already provided argumentation on the matter of philosophy, several of whom are detailed by name above.
The third is to direct the attention towards explanation of the written work of the philosophers.
How would you explain what doing philosophy actually is?
What doing philosophy actually is, is to attend to the unknown in order to clarify whether it is knowable or unknowable. And if knowable then to name what any particular matter may be knowable as. And if unknowable then to name in what way unknowable.