My answer to this question on Quora here: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-want-to-destroy-other-people/answer/Carey-G-Butler?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=7837281943
Often they do it, because those who destroy others’ lives are themselves miserable or have destroyed their own lives.
Another reason is to advance objectives that are held by the person or held by the people the person works for. Alphabet agencies like CIA, NSA, NSC, BND, MOSSAD, UNO,… there are even documented examples of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook having exhibited this behaviour.
They usually harbour some form of disdain for others or humanity as a whole. Or they are incapable of human properties like empathy (pathology of some kind).
Humanity is comprised of many spectra; those of ideologies, values, goals, methods, knowledge, power,… These spectra, when placed upon their side like a sine wave (which is actually a spiral), look like Bell curves of some type. There are many variants of these curves.
Here are a few examples:
Note how each Bell curve exhibits specific properties. Among those properties are the distribution of an inherent ‘population’. The population of the curve could be anything, not just people. They also have outliers. Those of the population which exist on the extreme left or right of the curve.
If we had a particular set of properties to examine, we may place the distribution of this property into one or more of these curves. Let’s take banksters, who can be, and usually are very destructive.
We would have at least 5 curves to describe their population.
- Intelligence: where they usually (always exceptions to outliers) occupy the upper portion of the curve (where it gets real small).
- Empathy: where they usually occupy the extreme lower part of the spectrum.
- Control fetish: where they are usually found in the middle of the spectrum.
- Hoarding: again in the centre.
- You could continue in this vein to describe them so uniquely, that even language can’t keep up with its ‘granularity’ (increasing specificity). Things like available resources, socialising debt, privatising profit, corruption, warmongering, demographic changes, jail time, manipulative tendency, fear,…
That is where language is then transformed into knowledge.
As you see, people who destroy other’s lives can easily be found using this method.
Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #10 All holons have at least six fundamental capacities. (Revised)
#10 All holons have at least six fundamental capacities. (Revised)
#10 – All Holons have at least four fundamental capacities. (Potential)
*** REVISION ***
#10 – All Holons have at least six fundamental capacities. (Potential)
1) Agency (Maintaining wholeness/identity) Pull to wholeness
2) Communion (Maintaining partness/relationship) Pull to partness
3) Transcendence (Becoming more wholeness) Pull upwards
4) Dissolution (Breaking down into constituent parts) Pull downwards
Lateral (Transverse): *** NEW ***
5) Interiority – Change towards or within its interior (enfolding/recursion)
6) Exteriority – Change towards or without its exterior (unfolding/emergence)
(see #6 for definition of holon)
See http://mathesis-universalis.com for more information.
#Knowledge #Wisdom #Insight #Learning #Understanding
#Constants #Variances #Metaphysics #Philosophy
#MathesisUniversalis #ScientiaUniversalis #PhilosophiaUniversalis #LogicaUniversalis #MetaMathematics #MetaLogic #MetaScience #MetaPhilosophy
What I’m going to say is going to be unpopular, but I cannot reconcile my own well-being without giving you an answer to this problem from my perspective.
My only reason for reluctantly writing this, knowing what kind of reaction I could receive is, because I abhor that some of the best minds on our planet are occupying themselves with this problem. It pains me to no end to see humanity squandering its power for a problem that, as it is currently framed, is unanswerable. It goes further than this though. There will come a time when questions such as this one will be cast upon the junk heap of humanity’s growth throughout history. It will take its rightful place along such ideas as phrenology.
Here’s why I say this:
The problem is firmly and completely embedded in Functional Reductionism. I say this, because the problem’s framing requires us to peel away the contextual embedding of the problems for which it is supposed to clarify.
This is just one of its problems. Here’s another:
Since the data for this problem (and those like it) are themselves algorithms, they are compelled to be functionally reduced versions of mind problem solving (varying types of heuristics and decision problems) which reduces the problem’s causal domain and its universe of discourse even further. How can a specification based upon functionally reduced data be again used as data for the problem’s solution in the first place?
That means that this problem has no independent existence nor causal efficacy. Everywhere I have looked at this problem, the definitions of NP-Hard and NP-Complete do not lead to proving anything useful. We cannot ‘generalise’ the mind by reducing it to some metric of complexity. Complexity is also not how the universe works as Occam’s Razor shows.
I am prepared to defend my position should someone have the metal to test me on this. Another thing: I wish I could have left this alone, but we all need to wake up to this nonsense.
 http://bit.ly/2GHbRkW How Occam’s Razor Works
Words are symbolic indications and/or conveyors of meaning and are not that meaning in themselves.
Meaning is found, stored, and manipulated in our minds. This is why different languages are capable, in varying degrees of usefulness, to convey meaning which is very similar to that found via the symbols of any other.
It It is also the reason why there are words indicating meaning that are not found in other languages; or, if found in a different language, the other language requires more of its own structure, dynamics, and resonance to convey the same meaning.
For example: the words ‘déjà vu’ in French are found in German ‘schon gesehen’ and in English ‘already seen’, but these phrases do not convey the full meaning found in the French version. To counter this deficit, their meaning in other languages must be ‘constructed’ out of or ‘fortified’ by the careful use of longer strings of symbols. This additional construction and/or fortification may even fail at times. This is often where the word phrase from a different language is simply added to the language in which the concept is missing.
This same situation is found in the literature of many languages. The words used to convey meaning are condensed and may contain more meaning than is usually the case. In this regard, even the person reading/hearing the words may not possess the competence necessary to catch this condensed meaning in its fullness.
Mathematical expressions, albeit more precise, are also indications of meaning. They are more robust in their formulation, but at ever-increasing depth or scope, even they may fail to reliably or conveniently convey meaning.
Our understanding of what words mean is not always accurate, but where our mutual understanding of the meaning of words overlaps, and the degree to which they overlap, is where their meaning can be shared.
Our own personal understanding of words is measured by our ability to apply their meaning in our lives.
There is also a false meme, which I would like to clarify.
“Knowledge is Power!”
It is wrongly said that ‘Knowledge is power’. The truth is another: Knowledge is the measure of usefulness of what we understand and is the only true expression of its ‘power’.
The value of Knowledge is found in its usefulness and not in its possession.
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
Common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. Modern Mathematics pays the price for that precision by being overly complex and subservient to causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Modern pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The mono-logical gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in (modern) pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as Category Theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see them and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?
Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?
Answer: Philosophy is more fundamental than mathematics.
This is changing, but mathematics is incapable at this time of comprehensively describing epistemology, whereas, philosophy can.
Hence; mathematics is restrained to pure ontology. It does not reach far enough into the universe to distinguish anything other than ontologies. This will change soon. I am working on exactly this problem. See http://mathematica-universalis.com for more information on my work. (I’m not selling anything on this site.)
Also, mathematics cannot be done without expressing some kind of philosophy to underlie any axioms which it needs to function.
Implication is a ‘given’ in mathematics. It assumes a relation which we call implication. Mathematics certainly ‘consumes’ them as a means to create inferences, but the inference form, the antecedent, and the consequent are implicit axioms based upon an underlying metaphysics.
Ergo: philosophy is more general and universal than mathematics.
Often epistemology is considered separate from metaphysics, but that is incorrect, because you cannot answer questions as to ‘How do we know?” without an underlying metaphysical framework within which such a question and answer can be considered.