Perfect, Benjamin. Please use what you feel will help you develop your ideas further.
I am a structural philosopher and that means that structure is the essence of my thoughts and writing.
It is at the overall level of structure that something very special happens.
Gödel already showed that with his Incompleteness Theorems, but I have the feeling that folks (and perhaps even Gödel himself) did not recognize the handle that his Theorems provide us.
It is easiest to see when putting the binary system next to the decimal system.
The decimal system is the easiest for us to use because it contains many handy shortcuts. It is easier to read 365 days than it is to read 101101101 days.
Yet embracing the decimal system as the truth throws out the baby with the bathwater.
You can best see this with number 1. Decimal 1 does not exist in the binary system, and binary 1 does not exist in the decimal system.
To establish the decimal 1 in the binary system (for instance to express the word Unity), we can agree to make 11101001101 that number. As long as we agree on it, we can use those binary numbers to express Unity. In other words, it can get established. It is not automatically natural.
To establish the binary 1s in the decimal system, we can say that 22 is the number that shows how there are different parts that can never be made one. That Catch 22 establishes then the understanding that no part is then ever connected to the whole as in being a part of the whole that is always whole. Confusing word use here, but I hope you see immediately what Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are telling us. More examples below.
Once we reach an overall level, we never will find the ultimate level, while we will most likely think we got to the overall level.
A quick and perhaps better example is gender based. All men have some thing in common that is not shared with all men. The first all men is all male men, while the second all men is all human beings.
What is an absolute truth for all males cannot be lifted to the highest level and be an absolute truth for all humans.
I normally do not use gender examples, but it was the fastest way to show that the truth can be true and yet not exist for all at the overall level. Incompleteness is what we find as ultimate answer.
The decimal system can never be the ultimate system. The binary system shows us that other systems are available, too. No truth is the only truth.
—
Particularly because human beings entertained the abstract, we are able to entertain the binary system and the decimal system. Yet the faulty thought is that we don't think whether these systems are different or not. They are, but the spots where they are different are extremely difficult to spot. We got lost in the abstract world because it is automatically not-grounded in reality but always floating above reality.
Perhaps an interesting fact is that humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while our cousins the men apes have 24 chromosome pairs. It turns out that we mixed the original chromosome pairs 2 and 3 into our chromosome pair 2 and our chromosome pair 3 is actually their chromosome pair 4. We united pairs that man apes did not unite.
We did something artificial. We are homo artificialis. Our brain is a spectacular center in which the artificial world rules, simply because even a faulty organization can deliver us strength in numbers and the lie can win from the truth as long as it has the numbers to back it up.
Another way to look at the abstract reality is by using the word magical. And that is perhaps where the childlike and the abstract brain find their common grounds. In the abstract, we can fly off this planet with pleasure. It is when we keep hanging in space that our problems can get out of hand.
Let me finish with the king sitting on his throne. He has all the power in the kingdom, and all bow to the king.
But if the king dies and there is not an immediate new king, the throne ends up symbolizing the power of the king. Those challenging the institution are pulled back by those supporting the institution.
If instead we have a constitution, then we have an abstraction of the king with that constitution and without an actual person, except for placeholders.
When a king is challenged, then the king can beat down that challenger. But the constitution needs to be kept in place by police, army, and social forces.
Still, we can collectively ignore parts of the Constitution when no one keeps their fingers in all required places all the time. A Republic, if you can keep it, said the Founding Fathers. For sure, we let go of some parts already.
The abstract level is fascinating in that it is not based on solid grounds.
The king is found on solid grounds. The constitution is not.
The king can be replaced by other individuals. The Constitution could have been written differently. But I hope you see that we are discussing different playgrounds here for that what are the real parts and for that what are the abstract parts.
Children give space to their parents being kings and queens; they incorporate a magical world into their thinking. The fact that it is not real will not prevent us from becoming the rulers of the world (and should prevent us from destroying the world if only we realize what it is that we are doing).
Good luck with your writing, Benjamin. Knowing you, you will do a fantastic job.
