i. Introduction

It wasn't my intention but this can be seen as a response to scientific studies/philosophers that argue that because our brain processes information before we're conscious of it, our freedom is limited. Just because we're operating with conclusions doesn't mean conclusion is the only thing in this world. But it means that conclusions are the only thing we're certain of.

This philosophy can be seen as a Platonic and Hegelian apology but I'll sale it as a philosophy of mind thing for the purpose of this intro. And simultaneously use the philosophy of mind example as an abstract example so that you can see how this applies to everything.

So you're probably familiar with Descartes, "I think therefore I am." And its critique: to be able to reach the conclusion "I am" you have to first think. So whatever you are, primarily you're a thing that thinks. And I love this last sentence because "you're a thing that thinks" is necessarily true because you're thinking it, and thus the proof.

But we can also summarize that last thought by saying "I am the conclusion of a thought." You can't travel in time yet and thoughts are a temporal entity. Up to now and for the next few sentences and for all eternity until you die, your thoughts are going to exist simultaneously with your body as long as your body is healthy. The reason I separate body and thoughts is not necessarily a presumption of dualism (to avoid any of that) it's just a convenient way of talking to illustrate the point; like talking about "your heart and your body," this is a phrase where the topic focuses on how your heart relates to all the other parts of your body, etc.

Now this thought that you have and are using to process all this at this very moment can focus its attention away from analysis and think creatively (producing works of art, solving problems, etc). Either way, whether you're analyzing something to see if its valid and sound or whether you're creating something for whatever reason, you're always dealing with conclusions. You're going to ask yourself whether the conclusion makes sense, is it obvious, is it intriguing, is it metaphorical, is it beautiful, is it loving, is it red, is it loud, etc.

The reason everything is a conclusion is because it is what it is; everything is whatever it is because it is. But a conclusion begs the questions. Because a conclusion means there are premises and a system that processed the premises to arrive at the conclusion. But where are these premises and systems? They're conclusions, too.

Premises and systems don't actually exist. The only things that exist in this world are conclusions. We create premises and systems to make sense of the world and ourselves. This sounds insane because we create systems ALL the time. Numbers, math, sciences, theories, factories, watches, electronics, cookbooks, etc.

All these systems, and all systems, take in premises and reach conclusions. But I would argue, and this is the crux of the matter, that all premises and systems are just conclusions that mimic the concept of premises and systems. This here can be dualism and damn near heresy. Regardless, the point stands that, for all intents and purpose, the only reason we use premises and systems is because of pragmatism (in the very abstract, philosophical sense of the word). Obviously this has severe consequences. What about the theory of evolution? It's a premise and system that is so evidently true. Obviously we don't create the premise and system in that situation. We just create theories from objective observation so that the conclusion has no bias whatsoever. But that's exactly the point. The theory of evolution is a conclusion built on conclusions. We can alter the theory of evolution as previous conclusions change or it can remain the same for as long as humans live; and as humans observe evolution through time, we can see that our conclusions are right. But they don't stop being conclusions. Here it should be obvious that I'm trying to create a perspective but at the moment it seems forced; hopefully by the end it won't look so forced.

Going back to "I am a thing that thinks," this outlines the concept that to process anything you have already reached a conclusion. Because what is is because it was processed by a system that made it a conclusion. I think this can seen as the problem with cause and effect that Hume writes about. We're the conclusion of a premise and system we find ourselves in (the universe, Reality, etc) but we have no idea what the premises are or what the system does. These cracks in the foundation of our worldview is what leads to the abyss or God or theory of the Forms or whatever. This is where critical thinking makes life worth living.

ii. Irony

You can see that you're a system by processing a theory. You can observe yourself processing a theory. And that observation is a system in itself. How you process that observation of the observation leads to certain conclusions. Those conclusions are predetermined in the sense that once you enter a system you have already entered the system with premises. And the system and premises always determine the conclusions.

Have you ever been upset with someone online? Why isn't that person upset with themselves? Well, they might be. Regardless, the person that we assume is not upset with themselves is not upset with themselves because they are a separate system of the same kind as you processing different premises of the same kind as yours.

That is to say, all humans are of a similar system processing similar premises. How we distinguish individuals, however, and obviously, is processing how they differ (regardless if it's relatively marginal).

Take the alphabet and language as an example of premises, systems, and conclusions. The letters are the element. Meaning is the premise. Grammar is the system.

You as an individual understand words by processing the premise through the English system. If these words were in Spanish, you would try to process the words in the English system but would realize the conclusion you were reaching did not correspond to the system. It is then you realize you would need to process the Spanish system to understand the meaning behind the words (not literally behind the words; obviously you're interpreting these words by referencing your previous experience with them and reaching a meaning but this meaning is not necessarily a thing that exist in the physical sense; it doesn't exist in space, only time). These words are only read correctly if the correct system is set in motion. So that the system captures the input from space and processes it through time (referencing the idea via memory, thoughts, and belief) but only if the system is operating the right way to be able to achieve its desired goal. Although only conscious systems seem to have the ability to idealize goals.

Now to prove this claim on the meaning not being physical. By the nature of physics, everything is a constant. Everything is in motion guided by laws and made up by predictable patterns. Laws do not change. Which might urge one to say that we're just the conclusion of a system. If we're founded with premises that exist before we exist, and those premises are necessary for our existence and we're just guided by those premises, then our existence in the system and our ending has already been determined. We cannot escape the system nor the premises because without them we don't exist. We are the conclusion of the system processing the premises.

Part of the reason why this meaning within our own consciousness is not physical is that we can change the premises, the systems and the conclusion that contribute to its function. We usually, for example, make a distinction between the premises of scientific theories and the premises of eating lunch. Being hungry is usually a premise of eating lunch but what we eat, a system in itself which is usually dependent on hunger, varies by individual and changes (if only a bit) each time we eat; plus hunger alone doesn't determine what, where and when we eat. Scientific theories cannot change the system or the premises; scientific theories are already predetermined. In scientific theories, the system and the premises are formed by observing the conclusion (which is purely based on physical observation; what is, is. what is not, is not). Scientific theories, therefore, can be said to depend on observation independent of subjectivity. For a scientific theory to be true, the premises and systems need to be predetermined (that is, the observations (conclusions) are processed by the scientific method (system) to reveal the premises ("Truth")). This is naturally incompatible with our subjectivity and individuality since our premises and system are independent of the scientific theories. While scientific theories aim to describe the system we're in, the premises we ourselves use and the systems we use and the conclusion we aim for rest on our conscious thoughts.

For example, vegetarianism can be a system that can be used within the system of eating to determine what you eat. The ecological system you find yourself might also play a factor in what choices you have to eat from. Your society may also have dietary standard that favor certain foods over others. Etc.

The reason that we can prove that meaning as a system is not physical is that, for one, it doesn't behave like the physical. Meaning is fragmented and put together by the person that only sees meaning as fragmented. The result being that meaning is always approximations and ever changing (through the grace of irony).

Approximation in one sense because we're always conscious of our circumstances but we're conscious that we're conscious only of what we know while at the same time knowing that there's stuff that we could be conscious of but we're not. The meaning we give to the world is based on how we piece together each aspect of our reality, but there will always be missing parts because the pieces don't have an objective configuration. We, however, cannot see the dark unknown. We can only be conscious that what we're seeing is an incomplete picture of reality. Beyond that picture there are shadows that offer more details but they can only be seen by following our premises to their logical conclusions. This is not always achieved because sometimes we avoid the conclusion out of fear, ignorance, pride, etc and instead avoid the logical conclusion through further ignorance and staying in the dark, rather than going into the darkness and seeing the absurdity of it all. The conscious thoughts that accompany us, including this one, can be see as the pragmatic meaning we give to the world. The meaning in the world that plays a role in our actions and reactions; each and every thought is a thought full of meaning and each aspect of that meaning can be analyzed to reach further conclusions; conclusions that are always arrived at by either known or unknown means. Using both known and unknown premises and systems.

In another sense, meaning is approximation because meaning is dependent on other people. We alone cannot make sense of the world to the same degree that a society can. This means that to connect to a society's meaning implies that you have to in a way suspend your own meaning while at the same time integrating your meaning into the society's overall meaning. Your meaning, then, functions as a premise in the society's system of processing premises and you both take part in the forming of the conclusion and being the conclusion.

Our current understanding of our reality is an approximation of the big bang through time but this is only seen in a fragmented way through time. The physical is always in itself a conclusion. We ask what is our conclusion as human beings but we don't ask what's the conclusion of a rock. The evidence for the laws of the physical is inside the physical. The conclusion of the physical is evident in the physical. But the conclusion of our meaning is not so stable. The connection between the different factions of reality are shrouded in mystery and through meaning we explain the darkness. By tracing the edge of the unknown we find the limits. But the more you trace it, the deeper in you can look because the closer you get.

Meaning is an objective system in that we all derive meaning the same way. We use it precisely to tie the different fragments of reality together; that's the function of meaning. We each, eventually, have our own premises by which we reach conclusions. The similarity in conclusions between humanity is similar because it is determined by a similarity in the premises and system that process it. Obviously we all originate from the same system and have premises that are generally identical, except for a few circumstantial differences.

If we can agree with the assessment of these conclusions based on the premises drawn up, then this philosophy should be a reflection of thought. It should see itself in the mind of the reader. And thus it would just be another system with a conclusion which would be you taking these premises and arriving here. The thing about that is that you arrived there and you either saw a self reflection or didn't, but you still arrived there. Which proves the concept of reaching a conclusion; regardless of what that conclusion was. And that's exactly what life is. While the conclusion remains known because it is what it is, what exactly is exist inside an unknown system through unknown premises.

Thus freedom is found in irony. And power refers to our ability to act as wide-ranging premises and multi-functional systems to reach the conclusions we desire, idolize, admire, etc.

iii. Unhinged but Not Free: Theory vs Ideology

Irony is not absolute total freedom because the basic formula (premise goes in system, these two factors determine the conclusion) cannot be broken. Thus irony is not totally freeing. But irony can unhinge the process in place (premise->system->conclusion) so as to either change the premise, the system or the conclusion in such a way that the change causes a ripple effect to the other components (by virtue of predetermination); a shift in any of the three component of the process changes the rest of the process at a fundamental level.

Irony is freeing mainly in ideology because our own ideology, our "spirit" or ghost in the shell, is unguided. We ourselves have the ability to break the chains of ideology through further ideology. We can chase the abyss with gusto and we can find and work with different premises and conclusions in our neverending search for other premises and conclusions through the life system; by the virtue of the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Theories, again, try to prove an objective conclusion independent of the individual by creating an objective system independent of the individual. Calculus, for example, being a theoretical system that can take in premises through objective systems to reach conclusions. Against, once the premises and system is known, the conclusion is determined. For the theory of communism, we put in place a system of governing that is communistic along with all the premises implied by the concept of governing and the result of all that is the logical conclusion; although the actual vs theoretical conclusion may differ, the principle stands.

And ideology is a belief system which, like any system, takes premises and reaches conclusion. Attaching oneself to an ideology is attaching oneself to a system that is already one half of a determination. Once the ideologue encounter premises its on them to follow those premises into the logical conclusion; into the abyss. But the ideologue, being an idea itself, can entertain ideology and process them via artificial theoretical systems. We can entertain ideological theories and entertain logical conclusions; but only through our fragmented system of consciousness. Then reality hits you when you try to show your work and are shown instead why the conclusions where incorrect.

iv. Beauty

Life is beautiful and perfect. It's in harmony with necessity. Consciousness is in turmoil. It's hideous. It only exist because it seeks to destroy itself through finding its conclusion. Find a burrow to lay for eternity. The scared consciousness looks for distraction in the face of death; rather than stare it in the eyes it sings, hollers. Singing and hollering for so long it creates stories from the sound. It associates feelings and emotions with fairy tales. It finds beauty in make belief to avoid going into the abyss. Finding only a miserable life draped in fantasy. As the fantasy stays the same and life changes, lies are built to sustain them. Just to make belief that we have beauty.

At time the fantasies seem to be borne out of authenticity. With time, however, the fantasies must adapt to new authenticates or the fantasies will have to be supported on stilts by falsehoods.

But what is authenticity? Authenticity is when the premise inside the system is harmoniously followed to its absurdity. Into the darkness. Rather than hide under the covers of lies in the pitch black, feeling a false sense of security, you jump into the logically sound, but completely unknown, conclusion. The conclusion is always already there. The only problem is whether the system is willing and able to process the premises.

There's no reason to believe that looking for answers in the abyss is better than avoiding it with lies. But lies are a snake eating itself. There's no nutrition in lies.