I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's

[alec]

Hm. Let's see if I can make myself clear:

I'm writing a new book. A book about life, about reality, I suppose, and in one of the chapters I've started to mention different 'systems', you know, different ways of interpreting reality, of explaining reality. Blueprints. Models that - somehow - make sense. I'm not only talking about scientific systems (e.g. kosmology, evolution), but also about philosophical systems (e.g. Plato's cave and prototype-world, Nietzsche's eternal return) and religious ones (let's say, stories about creation). Anyway, the thing is: I'm just not smart enough to pull this of by myself. I could read even more books than I already read, it probably wouldn't make much difference: there would always be some system that I overlooked. Some neat little way of thinking about reality and explaining it. This is where you guys (and girls) come in. I'd really, really appreciate it if you could maybe tell me about 'systems' like the ones I've mentioned. I don't care if these systems are religious or scientific or whatever, as long as they are written down somewhere and got published sometime in history.

Oh, and please: DON'T make a strictly religious thread of this. I'm not looking for people who think everyone should become muslim or whatever. I'm interested in the 'systems' themselves, that's all.

Thanks.

 

[Ozrat]

What? You're too lazy to do some studying and researching? And you want us to do your homework so you can publish a book with our writings and you can retire at an early age? Sounds great to me!

Yes, I'm sure you're going to find and fit the world's best way of living into a single chapter. Let me know when its done so I can read it and have easy days for the rest of my life.

 

[JJ86]

Hmmm, not to be overly critical but you are writing a book, probably non-fiction and you are asking for information from people on an internet game forum? Is this going to be a published book? How are you going to be able to use references which might be blatant mistruths or at the very least simplifications in your book? If you are seriously writing a book, you should do the research yourself or at least hire a credible researcher.

OTOH, if its fiction just make up some stuff, it can have some basis in reality but it doesn't necessarily have to. I think you might have better luck talking to some philosophy grad students for reliable information. At the very least it might cost you a few beers.

 

[Sander]

New book? Have you written books before?

But ehmm, I agree, you need to research for yourself, otherwise it won't be nearly as good. Besides, noone will blame you if you miss some views.

 

[Montez]

I think the Blake quote you used pretty much sums up everything there is to know about systems - they are all artificial, subjective, and full of holes, and most likely you are better off creating one that suits your personality and outlook on life than adopting someone else's.

That aside, I'm not too clear on what you're asking. Do you want us to do research for you, or are you asking for our opinions on different kinds of systems?

 

[alec]

Well, I guess you guys are right. Who am I to think that this forum is suitable for questions like this. I wasn't asking for research, though, I've done a lot of that already and I am still busy doing that, but it's just impossible for one human being to read all of the philosophers this world has known, so I was just hoping that someone out there had read more than just "Sofies verden" and knew some stuff that I didn't. I guess not, eh?

How are you going to be able to use references which might be blatant mistruths or at the very least simplifications in your book?

I was thinking more in the way of: "Well, dear Blade Runner, maybe you should check out page x in this or that book of this guy. I had to do a paper on it last year, and it might be useful for you." I thought that this would have been clear to you guys.

New book? Have you written books before?

I don't want to brag, but yes: I've written three books already and each one of them got published by Uitgeverij De Arbeiderspers in Amsterdam. They are available at any library in the Netherlands and Belgium. Oh, and if you were wondering: I'm not kidding.

Hmmm, not to be overly critical but you are writing a book, probably non-fiction and you are asking for information from people on an internet game forum?

It's actually a hybrid literary form, consisting of fiction, non-fiction, autobiography and so on. Oh, and I posted this thread in the general discussion forum, me thinks. I wasn't aware that you guys eat, dream and s*** games on whatever forum you visit. My mistake.

Anyway: I don't like the tone of some of these replies I got (f*** you Ozrat). I know very well how to do research and believe me: I wouldn't trust any of you guys to give me correct information unless I would've been able to read it somewhere. That's why I asked to only refer to printed work. I'm not asking for opinions, just references and stuff like that, so I would've been able to check it out and see if I could use any of it. Again: my mistake.

Now you can all go back to the threads that are more to your liking, like the one about who's sexy and who's not, or the ones about guns and avatars. Have fun!

Briosafreak (or another moderator): you can delete this thread if you want to, I guess the only posts I will get, will be totally useless anyway. I will choose my next topic more carefully. Maybe something about fatal erections or exploding nipples, that should interest most of the visitors around here...

 

[Odin]

Actually this thread is very much valid for a general forum, I believe JJ86 was referring to the fact that it's gamers that visit this forum, hence not that many of those might know about these stuff..

And Ozrat, quit your whining and let the man talk. If you're not going to contribute, then just shut up.

If you're interessted in Norse mythology, ie creation and their look at the world, go here. And there are also alot of other mythology and folklore there

 

[Montez]

No need to get so angry. I can't speak for anyone else, but I honestly didn't know what kind of information you were looking for. I've read a decent amount of philosophy, so I'd be happy to point you to certain books or philosophers - it would help a lot if you mentioned what books/philosophers you have read so I don't post things you already know.

"Sofies verden" - would that be the book "Sophie's World"?

Edit: I always get "Sophie's World" and "Sophie's Choice" confused.

 

[JJ86]

I don't think you need to get pissed. There are a few of us that are college educated but I haven't studied much in the way of philosophy. I might trust two or three people here to give you good info on the subject but your request seems kind of vague. There are lots of opinions here and I don't think you will get much more than opinions of what is valid, not much in the way of useful, factual stuff.

Honestly I think you are better off doing a few Google searches on the subject than having a serious discussion here.

 

[Gunslinger]

I'd like to help anyway I can because getting published is an exerting endeavor and the man is only asking for some help, not for the entire book to be handed to him on a silver platter.

Philsophically, I can't say much, having been raised as a hard-nosed Catholic and given little lee-way on either side. Fictionally, I can.

Back in the old gradeschool days when I thought sci-fi and fantasy was cool beans, there was a work by Katherine Kerr which dealt with the world of Deverry. Now, I don't say this entirely with disdain, but practically everybody's fantasy work has an explanation of creation and ex cetera. And normally, said fantasy writer will fall back on the age-old rehash of the Greek Olympians (Raymond E. Feist, though I like his work, is first to come to mind). Katherine Kerr is slightly different but it seems more like a rehash (that of Buddhism and karma). Basically, when one dies, their spirit is sent onto a temporal wheel where they stay for an undetermined amount of time (hours, days, years). They are to be latter reincarnated and they retain, to some degree, a quality or trait that made them distinctive. For instance, a barbarian warrior, though he may be reincarnated into the family of a refined noble, will still express the berserker rage he's been plagued with from all lifetimes. I don't recall their names, but several heroes in Deverry's history turn out to be the same man reincarnated at different time periods. I don't know if that really helps, since it sounds much like Buddhism, but if you like fantasy and want to know more of said "system", I'd recommend Kerr's work. It's better than most fantasy novels.

Another fantasy author I already mentioned was Raymond E. Feist. His story of creation is mostly a rehashed varient of the Greek gods and goddesses. In this world, Midkemia, there are people who believe in either the gods or magic. It is uncommon to see priests and warrior monks associating with mages. The gods of Midkemia all have domains that they care after. Ishap, the One Above All, is the "good" god and he is worshipped by all. On the other hand, Nalar, the God of Evil, has been all but forgotten and is no longer widely worshipped except in death cults. There are other gods: Astalon, god of Justice, Prandur, god of Fire, and ex cetera. But here's the unique thing: the gods may impart their divine favor to mortals, but it is the combined prayers of mortals that allow the gods to exist. Thus, it is a mutual coexistance. In a sense, some of the gods are next to mortal, more of a demi-god but still being omniscent and never actually physically involved (unlike the Greek gods, whom you'll find fighting, raping, etc with mortals). Some of the gods can actually die. In a grand epic called the Chaos Wars, the gods quarrelled among each other for supremacy. Eortis, the original god of the sea, had been slain and his domain was given to Killian, goddess of nature. Tith and Onanka, the god of war and the joyful warrior god respectively, were both partially wounded and combined into an entity, Tith-Onanka, to survive. Sarig, the god of magic, was slain and his essence, mana, was scattered to Midkemia where select individuals gained magic. In addition, if a god does not receive prayers, his power can wane over time. Naturally, Nalar is not worshipped world wide so his influence is very minor. It's all very grand and well thought out so, once again, I'd recommend a read.

Another thing with Feist is that he tries to explain parrel universes. Basically, every universe is joined to a central nexus called, quite aptly, the Hall of the Worlds. The Hall is litterally a pocket universe created to centralize each universe. Feist describes it like a grand hall extending to no end with doorways on either side. Between these door ways are gray matter, black holes, and unexplored universes that have yet to have a "door" created for it. Doorways in the Hall of the Worlds are numerous and can often double back to a prior location. Each world may have numerous doors; some may have as much as eighteen or as little as none. The Hall itself is a dangerous place with hordes of intergalactic slavers and other unscrupulous individuals. One either has to be extremely skilled in magic, highly knowledgeable, possess extraordinary prowess in fighting, or have pure dumb luck to find their way into The Hall of the Worlds. It's hard to explain but I'd recommend you to read Feist's latter books as they are much more interesting and he has grown exponentially as a writer by the time he's written the Serpentwar Saga.

I've got other "systems" I've read about and I'll post them when they come to mind. Hope this helps, my friend.

 

[welsh]

I agree with the guys above. THere is little reason to be upset. The question is a bit nebulous.

I do politics and law- there are multiple types of systems here. English has a system of inquiry and of writing, but that is true across disciplines, and within these are subsystems. If you talk about Chemistry, do you mean the scientific method (a system of inquiry) or the table of elements? Religion, philosophy, art, music are all based on systems of one kind or another.

The problem that you pose, is also one that you admit to at the beginning of this thread, that systems are means by which we understand reality. If I were to say that there exists an infinity of systems that alone conceptualizes a quantitative system.

The notion of system applies to both, as gunslinger points out, to imaginary and factual worlds. It is how we understand what is real and what we predict to find real when we don't know. Thinking in terms of system is part of logic and may (although I find this speculative) be only removed by the idea of experience or sensation.

 

[Ugly John]

try http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/supernatural_world.htm
for Canada's native "magic" system.

on a personnal note: man you are easier to freak out than my litle sister when i was 8.

 

[Ozrat]

Okay, point made. Perhaps I should've let somebody make a serious reply before I jump the gun.

On a serious note, there are actually some really interesting points in the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. At least I think it's Daniel Quinn. He's also written The Story of B and My Ishmael. I've only read the first so far, but I'm in The Story of B right now. He brings up some very interesting points about religion, modern problems and the entire Western way of life. Check this stuff out! Be warned, these are in a dialogue novel form of writing. There's a story in each book. It really helps to be open-minded to liberal ideas as well!

Does that help?

 

[alec]

I suppose I better start this post by expressing my sincere apologies for getting pissed so easily. I was wrong. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that I just can't express myself as good in English as I can express myself in Dutch. That and the fact that this book I'm working on is practically impossible to write. It's the book I dream about, however, it's become an obsession, and for the last three years of my life I've been reading and studying so much, trying to figure it all out, that I feel like I'm getting more stupid with each passing day. Anyone seen 'Adaptation'? Well, I'm starting to feel like the protagonist in that movie. That says it all, really.

Secondly, I want to thank those that have been giving some interesting pointers, especially Odin and Gunslinger. I look into the stuff you guys mentioned as soon as possible.

Thirdly: all of you guys are basically right, and don't think I don't know that. It's impossible to be complete. It's impossible to put all of the 'systems' in a large bowl, stir them and extract THE ONE AND ONLY SYSTEM. It's a depressing thought, though, and it's starting to control my life in various ways (insomnia, agitation, the feeling of getting really, really lost and so on).

For me personally, the system(s) that is/are the easiest to deal with is/are the scientific one(s). That's kind of logical, since science is meant to be as objective as possible. After reading some works on cosmology, quantumphysics, superstringtheory, evolution and biology, you can get a pretty good idea how it all works, but than again: most of these works deal with 'models', not with absolute truths. And science is dynamic: lots of what is stated nowadays, will be proven wrong in the future. Even if the big bang-model is right (and it seems it probably is), there is not one scientist that can say anything meaningful about the state of reality before the big bang (even the first three minutes are very problematic, because of the problems with singularities and such). Reality simply didn't seem to exist before that.

I guess that's where subjective systems come in, and being an atheist I favor philosophical ones before turning to religious systems. The most soothing system I found so far, is Nietzsche's 'eternal return', basically because it is close to the scientific model of a cyclic universe (big bang -> big crunch -> big bang and so on). It eliminates the necessity to try to explain what was there before it all started (what was there? exactly the same thing as nowadays).

Another favourite of mine would be Plato. I've read a lot of his dialogues and the distinction between the sensory world and the world of ideas actually makes a lot of sense. It's subjective, yes, but it works. Most philosophical systems are merely footnotes to what Plato stated, it seems.

I've read lots of Kant, and than started to focus on some of the postmodern thinkers (Derrida, Ricoeur, Foucault, Wittgenstein), but their linguistic approach is way to antropocentric if you want my opinion.

I guess I should start to study religion now, and see if any of these systems makes sense. The whole concept of creators doesn't seem very satisfying, though. It's possible to combine it with superstringtheory and view reality as an illusion or a hologram, but that not only brings you back to Plato, it also creates a certain loop: whom created the creator. Stupid stuff, really.

I think it all boils down to this: no one knows, so how in hell's name would I be capable to pull it of? Do I really think that I can find some sort of Grand Unified Theory with my limited knowledge of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology? I'm insane to even think that. These are delusions of grandeur, and I know it, but it won't leave me alone. It's become an obsession. A bad dream.

Thanks for the advice, though. I'll come to my senses sooner or later.

 

[Brother None]

Oh, jumping in a bit late here, but my finishing paper for school was about philosophy...well, "a" philosophy, as in Rationalism (Liebniz, Descartes, Spinoza) and the way the theory of Relativity shred apart any last bits of it people could kling to. Seriously, Rationalism is dead, and as such I must say Kant is my favourite philosopher, ever.

Anyway, seeing as you're Dutch, there's only ONE truly definitive work you can read on the subject, the book used by all philosophy courses given in Holland from High School second literature to college; H.J. Störig's "Geschiedenis van de filosofie". Try it, it's fantastic. IF you want to get started a bit more easily, pick up Jacob Klapwijk's "Oriëntatie in de nieuwe filosofie", it's a fun read.

Heh, want me to send you my paper on Rationalism? It doesn't make much sense, but...

 

[Montez]

This site is a pretty good resource for philosophers works on the internet.

 

[megatron]

what books did you write?

 

[Sander]

I'm doubting taht the books are available outside of the Netherlands and Belgium, megatron. But if it is true, congratulations Blade Runner.

IN any case, could you give me an author name(pseudonym or not, whatever) or book titles, so I can actually read what you've written??

 

[alec]

I'm doubting that the books are available outside of the Netherlands and Belgium, megatron.

Alas! I'm no Stephen King yet, and I doubt I'll ever be. Some stuff that I wrote got translated in German, though, but it was published in German newspapers. And people tend to peel potatoes in newspapers, which is a crying shame, but what can you do about it, eh?

In any case, could you give me an author name(pseudonym or not, whatever) or book titles, so I can actually read what you've written?

Well, before I do that, I want to make it perfectly clear that it is not my intention to brag about these things. I write books, other people do other stuff. And don't forget that I'm well aware of the fact that I still have a long way to go before I can say that what I write is excellent. I'm still growing as a writer. I've made mistakes in the past, and I will make mistakes in the future. That's how it works, if you ask me. The same goes for all art-forms, I guess.

If you are still interested, this should answer your question:

http://www.boekboek.nl/boekboek/show/id=3176/dbid=8359/typeofpage=30185

 

[welsh]

The way you are pitching this project, it seems like a mix between Eco's Name of the Rose meets his Foucault's Pendulum meets the Illuminiti triliogy (for conspiracy buffs).

I think this is a wonderful idea. I could imagine a young student, probably a grad student, studying at a University who becomes caught in increasingly complex webs of systemic thinking.

Econometric rationalism trapped in Judeo-Christian religious doctrine influenced in Zen Buddhist bushido codes vs Chaos Theory flavored by Marxist economic analysis in Wallerstein's World Systems theory yet trying to maintain a balance between the Ecologist "balance of nature" vs "cataclysmic theories."

You see how these systems tend to collide? Its like when imaginations collide!

With the lesson learned being Epistemology is often shaped by one's on Ontology.

Could be fun.