Response to Nathan; Particular Abstractions

I agree, Nathan. So let me clarify and expand . . .

Self knowledge is an inextricable precondition for ordering ourselves. And though the dynamics change slightly from the micro(individual paradigm), to the macro(extant cultural/existential)paradigm . . . the fundamentals, we can say are the same . . . .

The individual experiences "micro-paradigmatic migration" and, as an aggregate of micro-paradigms can be said to reflect the sum of all that is comprehensible for that particular group (ex: all of humanity) we have a theory behind the formation and change (the mechanics) of macro-paradigms:

All individual action is informed by the theory structure relative to each brain. The theory structure, or that which we can allow as “paradigm”, contains all sorts of assumptions, subconscious (passive) associations, complex idea stacking (active-hierarchical construction), and processes about which we have no idea and are beyond our ability to quantify or qualify. However, what does make for useful analysis-- even in the want for an empirical knowledge of the brain's operations-- is that the sum of these processes somehow yields to the individual an identity. Identities, however seemingly self-assured, static or concrete are linked, as functions, to the operating dynamic theories. That is, where we think we come from imparts to us the foundational notion of who we think we are. Who we think we are, at a given paradigmatic moment, outlines the likely actions of the individual. It may be said differently: Should the exact parameters of a particular human identity, in one static moment, be mapped down to every operating theory (exhausting each theory's most fundamental constituents for a more interesting analysis), we would know who and what this individual thinks they are, and we would also know the entire breadth of potential actions for this person given an infinity of situations—this is possible in one momentary snapshot. But actions are always just likely and are not absolutely determined due to their relationship with dynamic Identity. Identity is in constant migration due to the perpetual effects of passive and active processes affecting the mind.

Accepting even the potentiality of micro-paradigmatic migration leads to its macro extrapolation. It follows necessarily that as micro-identities migrate and become socialized by the same/similar idea sets, producing similar theoretical constructs in the hierarchical brain, that some semblance of a group identity gets formed. This can be represented with simple venn diagrams, postulating an infinite arrangement of overlapping/concentrated and mutually exclusive/diffuse idea sets. But even with an infinite combination of the totality of human ideas, our contingent Identity(-ies) shrink in scale with the cosmos. In scale with the cosmos, we are more appropriately defined by what we are not-- than what we think we are.

The perimeter of any given identity, as demonstrated by venn diagram, demonstrates how our finite identities are always defined in relation to their alternatives: If a given finite identity can be represented by a circle, then we can visualize the perimeter of the implications of all of our ideas. We cannot see past the perimeter. What we don't know, or what is not contained within our perimeter (the breadth of all we are able to comprehend) is necessarily incomprehensible to us in such a paradigmatic state. We do not even have the language to describe things completely outside of our reality, our identity. In this sense, passive (or even ineffectual-active) migrations of all sorts occur, and are the common practice of life, until a dangerous risk is taken to penetrate the unknown.

Fear guards the gates leading to revolutionary paradigmatic change. This is a truism that every Identity can demonstrate within themselves by performing their own thought experiment, should this statement find contention. (The human brain still contains the evolutionary mechanism- Fear- for its self-preservation.) Nature, herself, is the most constant and insurmountable threat to the instinct to live. Confrontations with any of the unknowns in nature suggest caution to the self-preserving individual through the emotion Fear. Fear guards the perimeter of Identity and has the effect to turn back/paralyze efforts to shatter and expand the extant paradigm.

A dangerous risk must be made in order to expand-- a leap into something completely unknown. A tangent must be shot from a highly accurate synthesis of ideas at the fringes of paradigm. If it hits its mark, it offers those receptive within the relevant/overlapping paradigm the opportunity to assimilate new truths and to expand their cognition in proportion to the depth of penetration made into the dark.

All this is to participate in the business of finding truth. All this just to have the hope of making a meaningful contribution to the question: what does it mean to be human? I persist: If we do not know what we are as a fixed concept, then it makes no sense to make absolute normative claims about our action(s).

So . . . how is your head ordered? With what ideas do you associate and where are they taking you? Where did you get them? Have you ever really critically explored the borders of your own Identity, that of your larger localities, your World? Has fear ever turned you away and left you paralyzed in place wanting to cling to the same limited ideas? Are you ok with what this says about who and what you are not, but thought that you were? Can you return to the perimeter and make confrontations with Fear your life's work? What does this say about your contribution to the human project?

As a species, we will either see ourselves in scale with the cosmos and invite that as our new religion, or we will go on imbued with cravings for safety and comfort-- synonymous with a subjugation to Fear-- staying swathed in illusions as children while thinking of ourselves as having already broken into a great status.