The only common structure implied in all that is the case is the A|D|R identity. This is prosophy’s basic tenet. A moth as it is chased by a bat is an identity of the bat’s world. Your bathroom mirror, tonight’s image of your face on it, and your manifold self are as many identities of your world. All identities are derived. They all develop – sometimes through a number of passages – from the one originarian, fundamental A|D|R identity, which is sort of a zero sum of all experienced differences.
An identity emerges as a difference – from blatant contradiction to subtle nuance. No difference of sort, no identity. Whatever we experience originates from the concurrence of the arising|deciding|relating seeds. To use vintage philosophical terms, the A|D|R identity is what gets anything to be, the proper ontological factor, the cause for anything to happen. It is originarian because it is presentarian. It never fails to be present and operative when anything takes form. This is why we cannot see it straight or think it suitably. But we experience it coming across in whatever we happen to live.
We are used to consider such words as ‘fact’, ‘notion’, ‘sign’, etc. as ele-mentary terms, denoting in a general way the very bricks of everyone’s phenomenic world. This usually harmless belief is inaccurate, though. A word, for instance, is actually an act of wording, a sign an act of signifying, etc. For a fact to come around, a being-to-the-world has to be supposed for whom a particular A|D|R pattern is experienced as if it were a fact. Besides, there’s the usual requirement for a fact to be confirmed and agreed upon. But even in case of a wholly idiotic ‘fact’, something which I’m the only one to be sure of, and concerned with, the world over, I need a factifying act, so to speak, before I can take hold of it as such. Furthermore, I must also forget about my fabrication, if I wish to think of it as a fact in the usual objective meaning of the word. As long as the make up of the fact is on sight the making up is the fact. General biography reasons about acts. Acts find their value (as fact-value, form-value, image-value, and so on) as events in somebody’s life. Seen from a being-to-the-world inner perspective, acts aren’t but molecules of someone’s evenience (q.v.). [top]
Our existential worlds are the combined result of innumerable acts, which in turn are the outcome of occasional A|D|R blends. Also, there are no standalone worlds, except as imaginary products of our existential worlds. So, how come that ordinary life seems so obviously full of data, facts, forms, meanings, structures, and reliable recurrences? The answer is, by either natural (evolutionary) or sociocultural agreement.
One of the three co-factors, or seeds (q.v.), of all that is the case for a being-to-the-world. We may come as close as we are allowed to to the arising seed in various ways. If I forget to put my eyeglasses back on after a midday nap, something will likely arise in relation to the glasses-less situation. No matter what I decide the case to be, and how I describe it, something must occur to spur the event (my not seeing clearly enough, my not feeling the usual burden on my nose, my hand mechanically trying to adjust the missing thing, you name it). However, this ‘something’ cannot be identified until it meets its deciding and relating co-factors. Because it spurs the event-producing movement the arising factor can be misguidedly thought of as either objective, subjective, physical, mental, structural, linguistic, etc. depending on your overall philosophical outlook. In fact it can be anything, for instance the deciding or relating aspect of some past event, provided it meets with the two other seeds. [top]
A living thing is able to build its own world. Basically, life is defined by the extent of this ability. The result is a being-to-the-world. A being-to-the-world is a collection of more or less differentiated identities put together by an organism. In prosophy, being-to-the-world is an idiom conveying this most basic concept, that nothing is (exists) except as a brew of the arising|deciding|relating seeds.
Humans are capable of self-consciousness. This means that they can represent, review, and edit experience, on the spot and afterward, through constructs mirroring what is going on, or what has been the case, or what one foresees, dreams of, hopes, fears, etc.
One of the originarian determinants, or seeds, of all that is the case for a being-to-the-world. Note that there’s no dialectic order to them. Each de-terminant comes into sight the moment it bundles up with the remaining two. Thus, the D seed is not second more than it is first or third in the line. They come in bundle. Yet, while they can never be observed separately, it’s easy to acknowledge their dutiful presence by trying to imagine an act stripped of one of them. Is a D-less act ever viable? Nope. To break the surface, the A seed needs a decision, a taking-charge-of, a taking-into-account, an assessment of sort. Without which it might be anything, from nothing at all to the most relevant incident ever. Conversely, an A-less act would be utterly blank and an R-less one unintelligible. [top]
A sequence of more or less connected events. Life is a collection of eveniences and a multi-evenience itself. At best, what we may argue about separate acts, let alone about minute A|D|R identities, is kind of reverse-engineered from the flow of evenience. Prosophy tries never to overlook this existential priority.
An act considered as part of evenience, a fraction of someone’s evenience. The result of somebody having experienced an A|D|R identity. Events connect in eveniences, the main connecting device being – in humans and their peers, as far as I can imagine – transducibility (q.v.). See also act and evenience. [top]
Since there are no beings, things, facts, data, forms, structures, etc. except as A|D|R identities, or cluster of identities, produced by a being-to-the-world in evenience, the fundamental science is biography, the accurate de-scription of what is lived.
I call an idea any mental construct pretending to cope with life without an apt recollection of its A|D|R origin, like a moviegoer who, captured by the story, would downright forget his being seated in front of a wide white screen where all sort of film can be played, not just the one he’s watching.
Irreducibility & transducibility (I & T) are complementary concepts of general biography. They cover the question, What engenders evenience? What happens to the A|D|R seeds on their route from event to event? Or let’s put it this way: How come that from act to act the A|D|R factors seem free to become no matter what (or lie unchanged)? The answer entails the gathering of what is meant by irreducibility, transducibility (q.v.), and & (the & prological concept, q.v.).
The debate on meaning has been dominant in 20th century linguistics with undecided results. In prosophy, a meaning is the output of an agreement by which something is exhibited (a stop sign, for example) that is taken by someone (a driver) to stand for something else (a specific obligation). The dot at the end of the sentence has just been taken by the reader to stand for ‘Here’s the end of this sentence’. The reader has taken the meaning for granted, and most probably she hadn’t even registered her granting that particular dot its due meaning.
medial – See O|S|M table below.
median – See O|S|M table below.
As logic requires non-contradictory connections between terms and propositions, so life involves nexus between the A|D|R co-factors (intra-nexus) for an act to form, and between acts (inter-nexus) for an evenience to develop. Actually, two more levels should be considered: the inner nexus governing the getting together, for example, of different objective facets into the objectual ensemble of an act, and the outer nexus assisting the confluence of eveniences in one’s life.
The A|D|R seeds and their nexus in the flow of life seem too unpredicta-ble, unaffordable for any plain reasoning. A reflective mind is therefore prone to trim down this apparent disorder, which limits the extent of its powers. In short, reason enforces some basic order onto experience. The philosopher’s typical trick is to forget about having himself enforced that particular order, or paradigm, and consider it, rather candidly, as the true order of things. In everyday life too, we’re likely to simplify the A|D|R intricacies whenever we reflect on what is going on. Most of the times, we overlook the subtle A|D|R shifts leading to a new event. We sketch out what happens in straight lines.
objective – See O|S|M table below.
objectual – See O|S|M table below.
Perhaps the lengthiest quest in philosophy has been devoted to the idea of origin. Why an idea (q.v.)? Isn’t it a legitimate concept? Actually, questions on origin are plentiful – of this universe, matter, light, life, soul, mind, of species, humans, nations, cultures, languages, laws, thoughts, dreams, etc. Moreover, every question begets many answers. But, if everything may be inquired about its origin, the inquiring act is, so to say, more original. It is originarian. The primary originarian factor should not be sought out in the mass of answers, since it had to be already there when the very first origin question came into sight.
It’s evident from chronicles and daily news that mankind is equally avail-able to good and evil. General biography shows why. A|D|R connections, in all other species that we know of, are pre-specified. In humans they are absolutely free. Through transducibility (q.v.), humans may assume anything to mean anything to anybody. This original three-rooted freedom, far from being a sin, is their common lot. Unfortunately, supposing the color of an act to be its moral value, human freedom is colorblind. It entails no criterion to tell apart good and evil.
What is evident about elementary biography – that it cannot be formally studied but in the most general terms – is all the more valid with intra-act and inter-act nexus (q.v.). In the course of evenience, nexus quickly emerge and disappear more or less indifferent to logic (all the way from least indifferent, perfectly attuned to a particular logic, to absolutely anarchic and apparently irrational).
Simply said, prosophy explores the act of living, or evenience. It examines what everybody go through in any of their acts. In doing so, it also affords a general theory of all that is the case. Understanding life in all-encompassing terms – this has been the aim of much intellectual exertion over the ages, in philosophy, literature, science, art (also in myth, folklore, religion, etc.). So why a new term to name what is already there? Because an elementary, all-including understanding has never be attempted, as far as I know. The variety of opinions has been considered an impediment or at best a first, confused grade of knowledge on the way to some universal, enlightened truth. Yet, universal reason can be very confusing. As Kant noted, enlightenment is a self-assigned category. Philosophy has met its end because it couldn’t afford any more its self-accredited idea of reason.
One of the three originarian roots (q.v.) of human evenience and, as far as I see, of every conceivable evenience. Being co-originarian the R seed is never to be seen alone; it only occurs in conjunction with the remaining two. If you try to detach it, you’re likely to trespass into the happy realm of ideas.
Root and seed are patent metaphors for something that cannot be properly named, since a) to name implies the concurrence of all three seeds and b) the output of their copulation is streaming away in the flow of life. What we are allowed to catch is only an account of it. Each seed is originarian and presentarian, but never by itself. It has to congregate with the remaining two to produce anything. Thus, the concept of arising (A) is separately unattainable. It can’t even said to be a concept properly. Hence an insoluble difficulty that has engendered hordes of ideas.
With a human or human-like being-to-the-world, one never knows what might radiate from an A|D|R identity before actually having identified it, which is only possible from a live act. There’s always some apprehension implied. To make sense is to determine, about something, at least one A|D|R synthesis: what is inspected, to whom it makes a case, how is it denoted.
subjective – See O|S|M table below.
subjectual – See O|S|M table below.
& (the ampersand logogram) signals a prologic nexus (q.v.), an ac-tual connection of A|D|R identities occurring in someone’s evenience. By the way, the | in A|D|R is basically an alias for &. An & stands for all sort of linkage, from the simplest logic function to the most jumbled association. The & concept involves the meeting of opposition and sameness, too. It connects irreducibility (q.v.) & transducibility, meaning & sense. No conceivable dialectic is complex enough to manage the web of identities & diversities issu-ing out of the & function. The concept highlights an undecided proportion of ingredients, an undefined mix of coherence & inco-herence, purpose & joke, conflict & harmony… An indetermination that isn’t always due to a lack of knowledge, most of the times being a matter of hazy qualities, indefinite associations, shifting appearances. [top]
What nature does with its millions of species mankind mimics with its billions of acts. A species shows a unique A|D|R pattern, the way any human act does. The ingrained ethos in both natural and human worlds is based on freedom: freedom of invention (or replication) and accord (or conflict). Freedom does not entail fair dealing, though. Nature’s freedom of speciation admits carnivores on top of herbivores; mankind’s freedom of accord admits a continuity of wars. There’s no immediate basis for any particular ethics in our being-to-the-world. Or, if you want, all ethics are equally grounded, from the most compassionate to the wickedest one.
Possibly the fundamental link from philosophy to prosophy. Philosophies, religions, sciences, and all other products of human intellect need assertions, forms, rules, symbols, etc. They also need to posit, at their base, an unstated assumption. In saying something like “There’s a cat over there”, “Where did you buy that?”, “What a wonderful day!”, or “A ≡ A”, we always imply that a) there’s an omitted main clause behind what is being said, a premise like “[Here I am, claiming that] There’s a cat over there” and b) if the omitted clause were exposed the sense & meaning mix of the linguistic act would be different. So the routine says to forget about it. There’s a recursion to be avoided, if only to close the event. Communication is ruled by pragmatics. In fact, “Here I am, claiming that there’s a cat over there” would imply one additional premise, like “[You see that] Here I am, claiming that there’s a cat over there”, and so on.
This word (shortened as T in I & T) – meaning literally: “[said of some-thing, its] trait of possibly being shifted into [something else]” – is said of the A|D|R roots. If irreducibility (q.v.) underlines their incidence in every act, transducibility says that they are able to morph into each other.
the & concept
the fourth root
the premise [that]
Note on the O|S|M tableWith the I & T processes always active it’s impossible for anybody to track the procession of A|D|R many-sided identities incessantly issuing out of her/his being-to-the-world. Our brains are made to let us be to the world, not to meta-live our life as if from elsewhere. Still, in the process we collect a very rich set of samples from all kind of experience and may use it as a database. This is when we become, willfully or not, philosophers, for to order our inner database we need a basic scenario, an overall paradigm. Such a paradigm tends to slow down the incessant motion of A|D|R identities so as to sort them out. Thus, the arising seed, which is accountable for the phenomenon of a world facing us whenever we’re awake, engenders the object as an essential class of reality; the deciding seed, responsible for the appearance of a perceiving and judging mind, produces the subject; the relating seed, which grants a link between object and subject, prompts the medium (once the logos) category.
The O|S|M pre-paradigm (q.v.) has encouraged thousands of local para-digms simply sketched out or richly rendered by poets, prophets, philosophers, leaders, and clerics of all persuasion. Actually, each human being lives by a more or less sophisticated version of the O|S|M pre-paradigm. But what do we mean by sophisticated, in prosophy, since we are bound to include, in our overall vision, all that is the case in everyone’s being-to-the-world? Here’s where the O|S|M table’s terms may help. But it takes some effort to put them at work. First, let’s say again that the being-to-the-world we’re talking about is the one people see through their particular paradigm, which is a version of the O|S|M pre-paradigm. My terms are just tokens. I’m only concerned about the general pattern of awareness in the face of evenience.
Now, a being-to-the-world is a vast, entwined collection of objectities, subjectities, and mediants. They come in clusters, most of the times. Let’s suppose that in someone’s evenience this falling leaf is a) something she’s going to brush off the porch in a moment; b) a thing she expects to make some crunching sound if stepped on; c) a tiny bit of this fall’s foliage… As a mediant, it possibly implies d) an overgrown branch that should be pruned; e) summer being over; f) colder days approaching; g) the terrace view soon opening again on the far-off hills… As a subjectity, maybe it reminds her h) of having herself planted the tree the leaf is falling from; i) of having chanced this frail thing into being; j) her having neglected the pruning, and so on. In short, some O|S|M occurrences compound a given event. All of them are right (or wrong) in their own way. It all depends from the result of their taking part in the event. From a prosophical, all-encompassing viewpoint it might be argued that a lone objectity is at risk of being or becoming an exclusive objectity, an absolute meaning. This risk is often negligible, indeed it’s a plus in case of conventional meanings attached to something that has been purposely introduced to guarantee that specific meaning, as it’s the case with conventional signs.
But, as a general rule, in most matters it seems a good idea to have single objectities brought together in as large an objectuality as possible. Same thing for subjectities and mediants. It’s better for people to gather them into complex, open subjectualities and medialities, so to appreciate the relative import and impact of each of them. This note is not going to discuss the implications of such a general tenet. Suffice to say that anyone of sound mind tries to navigate in life between neat, act-pertinent objectities and complex objectualities. While an objectity as it is grants a manageable meaning, its corresponding objectuality offers alternatives and allows a deeper sense to be looked into. [top]
|Published October 21, 2014.
Last revised October 23, 2014.