A Cosmological Screed (Life Philosophy)

I don’t know how interesting this will be, but considering I never really know how interesting my thoughts are in the first place… I was thinking last night before I fell asleep about the notions of “my cosmological scheme”, aka my worldview, and how unorthodox they may be from my understanding of the general convention.  The standard convention being a religious outlook on life with its notions of an afterlife, and the like.

Well, onto the explanation of the scheme as far as I understand it.  It will be somewhat portrayed as a series of questions, and a return of thoughts (rebuttal to the question).  Kind of in the vein of old philosophical treatises, I suppose.  Along with other tangential thoughts, and maybe some deviations in structure as the article moves along.

-In the pursuit of truth, one must ask every question conceivable, for to do so the light of reason shows forth.  Asking a question as ridiculous as, “Am I Dead?”, leads one down this potential path.

-If I’m dead, I wouldn’t be aware of it.  My Consciousness, and sense of self would be gone.

-If there’s an afterlife upon death.  How can I verify that it is actually post death, and not the present life one is living?

-If a materialist approach of science is followed to explain things.  There would be no loss from a system perspective, for the Universe conserves; energy, mass, information…etc.  There is no escape from a closed system as far as I know, but the universe isn’t quite known to be closed.

– Then what is Death?  Is it a breakdown of coherency of a system?  Think of the notion of coherency as maintaining a set pattern.  A person’s body would be a pattern, and the breakdown of coherency at any level (molecular -> aging, physical reality -> limb loss…etc) would be death.  This holds true for energy, and information packets.  What gives an identity to a set “system”?

-Although if we are just patterns that are coherent, how’d I become to be originally?  I wasn’t aware prior to birth, and I won’t be after Death.  By definition of these terms.

-Therefore, what do I fear?  The notion of non-existence?  To be Nothing?

-Is this tied to the notion of limiting factors?  What is the limiting factor?  Finite Resources?  Over-consumption?  Although if virtual particles may become “real” particles simply by sticking around ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle ).  Then what is “Real”, and is there Loss?

-Where does the limitation begin?

-Is Death a ground state?  That one is less active/aware, but never truly gone?  Due to conservation of energy/mass…etc.  Much like an energy state in quantum mechanics?  A form of “immortality”?  If Death is Nothing, including an awareness that comes after expiring, awareness of Nothing.  Then what is Life?

-Life is the active/energetic state.

-Death is Nothing, it is the null set composed of that which is limiting/unbelievable.  The sinkhole, or perhaps “black hole” into which all is consigned that doesn’t work/agree.  Information feed into the “Nothing” is lost, but gained.  Black holes may be different “Universes”.  In which the loss is a gain.  One loses that which does not work, but gains a new possibility (a virtual notion that if worked with remains).

-Thus Death is the realization of stuff.  Mainly be the Self.  All because if the Self is gone, who’s to know?

-The possibilities of information relatedness is; Self, Other, Observer, and Unknown.  The Self is the integration of concepts, and components into the predominant perspective of “I”.  The Other is you, and every concept that hasn’t quite made it’s way into the the integration of Self.  An Observer is the notion of a detached perspective that witnesses the Transformation of components of Other to Self, and vice versa.  Whereas the Unknown, is the topics, and entities that simply cannot be deduced.  Either at present times, or at any limits of awareness.  It is true “Ignorance”.  It is like assuming that one is going to “Die”, and that there is “Nothing” afterwards.

-Belief is an assumption that I shall remain, but it can’t be verified except by the self.  Thus does one experience Death?  No, for to do so would contradict the notion of integrating thoughts from the Other into the Self.  It’d undermine Observer notations, and create a feeling of Ignorance/Unknown for those who aren’t the Self.  It can’t be explained.

-The catch is “Relativism”, I’m an Other to the Other’s Self.  Therefore I may die in their perspectives, but if said information ever reaches me.  I can’t accept it because it’d deny my “Self”.  Instead I may observe the processes, and deduce/enunciate possible patterns.  To espouse my beliefs, and assumptions thinking that they’re valid.  Much like the Realization of Truth for Plato with his Cave Allegory.  One is in a cave of shadows, beliefs that aren’t their own, or lies.  And once they realize this they leave the cave, but they return with their own Truth.  Trying to negate the lies for Others.  Although one’s personal truth isn’t necessary a truth for Others.  Thus creating another Shadow/Lie in the Cave.

-The limitation is the Self, what I can, and can not accept.  I can accept some truths if I can relate them to prior truths I agree with.  Thus integrating them into my world schema, but if they’re too far removed, or explained in a distant way.  I am lost.  The Self rejects said notions because they contradict, or are an affront to the senses of the Self.


Climbing The Ranks of Being, and Mentality (Incarnation Rank)

Within the Decayed Laurels setup is the notion of Incarnation Rank.  Incarnation Rank within this game is meant to portray the various strength levels that may interplay among species, and entities.  For instance an Incarnation Rank (IR) 1 being would be considered to have recently come about on the cosmic scheme.  As an individual they are unaware of the larger potentials that they may climb to, and are limited in scope to what they may affect in life.

At the other extreme is the IR 12 entity (Incarnation Rank is set up from 1 to 12 levels).  This level of being would essentially be an omniscient, omnipotent being, in short God.  In game mythos the only IR 12 entity to really be considered the “Star” is the Wandering God.  He never manifests fully within creation, for that would essentially destroy/distort his created reality to the extreme (to come later in the article,  notions of “Complete, or Inconsistent Sets” from Math).  Therefore, in the written mythos a Creator is always exiled from their creation.  This is for a sort of logical case that if they are within their creation, they can’t focus on the big/cosmic picture (they lose omniscience, and omnipotence).

In a sort of tongue in cheek manner, The Wandering God is my “Authorial Avatar”, or the avatar of the hosting Games Master (called Arbiter/Broker in my system).  His morality is meant to represent “my morality”, or the Games Master morality.  The Wandering God is considered N.C.T. within the setting, for he is just observing it all from “above”.  He only influences entities within the system from within the system through the characters, or qualia (notions of experience, information…etc).  He can’t fully “reach in” and do a “Hand of God” play, and change the system or waiver it to certain entities advantages (no miracles, or obvious Acts of God).  He favors no side within (neutral), and acts intermittently and incidentally.

He is the “external truth” that characters within the system will aim for as a notion of truth, but being that said figure is an Authorial Avatar.  His variant of Truth is set up to be subjective, and relativistic.  That there may be no absolute/objective Truth.  Mainly because I recognize that even now I am still learning/understanding Reality, and that my Dispositions/Understandings I have may change over time.

Anyways, onto the background theory that lead to IR development/implementation into the system.  The whole system was loosely inspired, and derived from the following notions;  Hierarchical Complexity (found here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity#Stages_of_hierarchical_complexity ), notions of Transpersonal Psychology (Google it), and Postformal Logic (again Google).

Tying these thoughts into the mathematics alluded to earlier.  There is a loose interpretation of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems.  They loosely imply that a set of Axioms (may be considered as beliefs) can’t both be internally consistent, or complete in their development.  Ex;  If a person considers themselves “Good”, they can’t be “Evil” (Good, and Evil being complete independent classes of thought).  Thus a person as considered Good is inconsistent with being Evil.  One is either one or the other, and not Both (Good & Evil).  Although there may be a problem with this logic, it is a binary dialectic.  An  Either/Or from philosophy.  Good, OR Evil…  Taken a step back towards “Relativism” one can realize that one can be “Neutral” to both dispositions.  Ex;  Should I care, or act upon a notion of Aliens on the planet “Blatoo” killing each other?  Yes/No?  It depends upon how big my “empathetic sphere is”, but that’s another topic.

In essence, if one considers “Good” as a “thesis”, and “Evil” as its “anti-thesis”.  Neutrality would by the synergistic results of those two dialectics colliding.  Thus leading to another pairing, the results from the prior state into the adventures/misgivings that arise from the generated “answers”.  Thus one ratchets up the complexity, and thought models they use to understand Reality (hierarchical complexity model above).  Eventually one comes to a point where they can realize/think that if “I Am Reality/God” (an IR 12 being).  They then must realize that they contain contradictory elements within themselves because how hard would it be to be consistent over an infinite time (no “Growth”, or “Change”)?  Wouldn’t that imply “Death”?  Are you comfortable with being the root of the “Problem of Evil” in Theology?

But this is a Relativistic Morality system…Good may be Evil, Evil does Good, and Neutral is just laughing…


Taking a P.I.S.S.

The (P)erception.(I)deology.(S)tability.(S)ystem, to be precise, and to be more exacting.  The mental disposition (flaws, and perks of mental traits) model that is to be found in the Decayed Laurels manual.  Spun off the likes of the Moral(ity) Cube with its thought processes, and establishments.  The P.I.S.S, was built off the same 3x3x3 (3 axis) principles of the Moral Cube.  Except in the case of the P.I.S.S., the axis are labeled Perception, Ideology, and Stability….just like it says on the “can” (acronym title).

Perception is broken down into Fiction (F), Balance (B), and Reality (R).  Ideology into Despair (D), Realistic (L), and Hope (H).  Finally, Stability consists of the following; Irresolution (I), Moderation (M), and Conviction (C).

To begin to describe the P.I.S.S. in more detail.  I shall start with Perception.  Perception is how a character sees the world in the game.  They may see it through a lens of Fiction where they believe in the “made-up stuff” almost immediately.  Ex; consider a child with a disposition towards believe in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny…etc.  The opposite of this Fiction domain is Reality which is when a character only believes what they can actually witness through their own senses.  Ex; a cynic who’d have no belief in anything supernatural, or paranormal.  This may sound good, but it also denounces the belief in anything that one can’t readily integrate into their mental schema.  Ex; trying to convince a person of a theory like Evolution, or Gravity…that there are small little particles that make up the universe.  Returning to the “middle ground” is the Balance domain of Perception.  This domain allows a character to witness either/or.  To realize that it is better to be realistic in certain contexts, but that it is also beneficial to escape from reality.  To have flights of fancy, and those unfounded beliefs.

Continuing on into the notion of Ideology, there is the notion of Despair.  This state of despair is to be understood as seeing everything bleakly.  That there is no hope to be found in Life.  Hope is it’s opposite, that there are moments to be found that inspire, and uplift a person to stay motivated in Life.  Realistic, is again the balancing point between those two forces of despair and hope.

Finally, Stability is how strong a character is in maintaining their mental fortitude.  Irresolution means that they are half-hearted, and unwilling to follow through with their emotions.  Conviction implies that they will follow through regardless of the cost, and moderation is fairly self-explanatory.

Coupling these three axis together, one arrives at a three code schema like with the Morality Cube.  Normality is B.L.M, and it implies that a character is fairly normal to those within their species/psychological group.  The thing with the P.I.S.S. is that it generates 27 different codes for mental dispositions, but each code has three ratings itself.  Thus the Normality of B.L.M. would lead to a disposition level 1 of being just “plain”, or “average”.  A disposition of level 2 in normality would express the urge to always flock together, and maintain relations with those that are similar.  A fear of the Unknown.  A disposition of level 3 would imply that they actively squelch those who are deemed “abnormal”.  This delineation into three different levels for each code/schema presents a total of 81 “different mental characteristics” for players to witness with their characters.

To provide a further contrast of different schema.  There is Depression R.D.I, and Nihilistic F.D.C..  The differences between these two can be understood via their components.  Depression is “realistic”, and therefore it means that they can’t see through the present doom and gloom of reality.  They hurt, and are sad.  Whereas Nihilistic implies that they have a “fiction” perspective.  That there is no such thing as “value”, and “meaning”.  That their version of despair is more existential, and that there is no future to be had.  At least one not worth having.  Both share the same Despair category, but the final difference is the Stability.  Depression is irresolute, and Nihilistic is conviction.  Depression a person finds it hard to do something, or anything.  Nihilistic they may often resort to tearing down “constructs” or “edifices”.

This entire system is used whenever a character in the game suffers, and fails a Sanity Check.  It also may be roleplayed by the players, or ignored entirely due to the sensitivity that may occur when dealing with mental health.

The Nature of The Beast (The Morality Cube)

Running along with the nature of the last few posts, and with what seems to be a prevalent theme right now in my thoughts.  Is the idea of a relativistic morality system.  In the context of Decayed Laurels there is the Morality Cube.  It is premised upon the notion of a Rubik’s cube arrangement.  That of a 3x3x3 minor cube array building a larger meta cube.  Building slightly upon D&D with its two axis alignment system as alluded to before (Good vs. Evil, Order vs. Chaos).  I’ve thought up a three axis system that implements Alignment, Effort, and Degree.  Alignment is the classical values of Good, Neutral, and Evil.  Effort is how much a character strives towards their moral disposition.  Example; Does one actively try to do Good, or do they just do it when it’s convenient?  Thus effort is broken down into three sub-categories of Intentional, Incidental, and Unintentional.  Finally Degree is to what level does a character honor their commitments/desires.  Essentially it is how long is a character going to push towards a certain goal?  Degree is also broken down into three sub-categories.  That of Maintained, Intermittent, and Abandoned.

These three macro categories (Alignment, Effort, and Degree) are read/written in a three-letter code.  Example; N.C.T. reads as Neutral, Incidental, and Intermittent.  It is understood that way too.  That a character is just bystander who isn’t really involved in what is going on.

Now the fun part comes when the code is visualized in that 3x3x3 array.  N.C.T takes the central most position within that array, so it’d be 2, 2, 2 in its coordinates.  It is easier to visualize that the Good alignments are the top plane of the array 3, #, #, and that the Evil alignments are the bottom plane 1, #, #.  Thus a change in one’s neutrality via their actions can either bring them up to Good, or change them to Evil.  The same visualization technique can be used with a different chosen planar axis.  Alignment being the xy plane, Effort being the zx plane, and Degree being the yz plane.

The tricky part with the Morality Cube comes when it is centered on N.C.T as the origin.  Thus Good becomes 1, #, #, and Evil becomes -1, #, #.  That’s the simple part, the weirdness ensures when one takes the notion of N.C.T being the default code/morality for a civilization/species.  In the manual Humanity is centered on N.C.T. , but individuals may drift to whatever morality within that 3x3x3 array.  Essentially, the species is seen as neutral, and just existing to the perspective of those within that species.  That the good, and evil elements within a set group balance out to a neutral effect.

To summarize so far;  A N.C.T rating instills a sense that the species is just there, for those that reside within it.  Although individuals within that society may be anything from Good to Evil with varying shades in between.

Implementing other species/aliens into the mix.  They would be seen at different moral codes within the Cube.  An example of this would be a species that is seen as benevolent by humans, and thus would gain the notation of Good, $, $ ($ being used for $string/the other axis) compared to humans.  Although from that alien species point of view they’d see themselves as N.C.T. because they too just exist within their domain, and would have both saintly and problematic elements within their society.  Therefore the cube grows, but in the manual it is limited to a written description of the 3x3x3 array.

Thus we get to the notion of moral relativity.  My good is not your good, and even my neutral element is not your neutral element.  That every species and civilization see themselves differently, but to outside observers they may be seen as a threat.  A sort of does the Lion consider the implications of eating the Gazelle?  Event though the Gazelle would preferably not be eaten?  Lion morality is not Gazelle morality, but they both reside within the domain.  Both consider their actions to be natural, and not offensive to themselves.  And yet to each other their acts are offensive, and may be considered “evil” respectively.  Whereas to a human observer, who’d be the “neutral party”, it’s just life.