General Biography

General biography is to prosophy what metaphysics was to philosophy.

Connecting with mankind’s oldest question.

People since ages inquire about the origin of things. Answers have been produced in great numbers. But all origins are themselves originated. Like everything else, they are products of the inquisitive mind, the presentarian consciousness, which is the proper originarian. Thus, what we’re looking for, in general biography, are the agents behind the originarian-presentarian: we look for the dynamo of evenience, the first-and-foremost factors behind each and every act, what is always pro-active in our lives, no matter what we’re experiencing, when or where we’re living, what we happen to know, what we’re thinking, etc. [top]

The most basic knowledge.

The same as on the origin of things can also be said of all that is the case. For each and every thing, to know what it is we have to see it presently at work in our life’s evenience. Traditionally, the most basic knowledge was ontology, the study of being. But being is itself a conceptual product emerging from somebody’s life and thoughts. So, the most basic knowledge is the description of life, or biography. It covers all acts and their ingredients the way they are, are perceived to be, are said to have been perceived, etc. [top]

Particular and general.

Ontology was practical in purpose. By reducing the infinity of biographical perspectives to some rational principle it erected a simpler, more manageable reality, functional to local projects as well as self-delusion. The variety of biographical reality cannot be handled as it is, because the handling process turns out another as-it-is. One can try to narrate a particular chain of incidents as a way to conjure up evenience, but in doing so a new chain of events is produced. Thus, to grasp the fundamental order of things, we have to try general or elementary biography, the depiction of what happens no matter what happens. [top]

Inclusion vs. exclusion.

For general biography to encompass all events and their immediate contents (things, facts, acts, images, feelings, thoughts) – no matter why, when, where, and by whom they have been lived – we have to give up exclusion. Our method should not resemble a straight way to, as much as a full angle, including all possible events. Diairetic exclusion has long been the most common instrument of methodical reasoning. Dialectics too is a way to pick up explanations. General biography doesn’t look down to suitable answers as much as observe the frame behind all questions. [top]

The premise [that].

But aren’t facts independent from acts? A rainy day, a falling stone, a blowing flower seem to be facts, first of all, and as such they may or may not have part in our acts. The world looks already full of facts; we just pick up a number of them along the way. They are what they happen to be, whether we do or do not know about them. Now, this fact-ontology is very useful and even unavoidable the moment one needs to build a particular ‘knowledge’, but it is patently false.
It’s easy to show why. Imagine Wittgenstein was right in his Tractatus: The world is all that is the case, or a combination of facts; a fact can be reduced to states of things; states and their constructions can be mirrored by way of mental representations; these can be rendered through an apt language. So there’s this phrase p that aptly depicts a fact. The question is, who backs p? Or, can p say what it says without someone endorsing it? Obviously it cannot. The meaning of p is unknown until someone thinks that p. All actual p’s are backed by a hidden [that]. Now, while the different sciences look proficiently gbter their own p’s, this general, inescapable premise [that] is what elementary biography seeks to understand. [top]

The one rule.

Philosophy was hot, it urged to find consoling solutions against existential quests; prosophy is cool, because it does not decide the sense of its findings. All sense and meaning come out of live acts, and they are decided according to personal evenience. Of course, general biography’s concepts too cannot but be lived. The fulfillment of their inclusive goal can only occur in somebody’s life. They are elements of live acts, like everything else, like the present act of writing or reading these lines. Such concepts are necessarily self-referential and should be taken as mere indications. Everyone has to make out his/her all-inclusive horizon of events. The one rule is, My general notion has to comprise all events the way they are lived. If this is not the case, if a single human act is not accounted for by the theory, then the theory is wrong. [top]

The A|D|R trio.

The [that] premise implies that someone asserts p, or that there’s no p without someone positing it. The same can be said of all possible senses and meanings, facts and acts, thoughts and things, words and worlds. Whatever is the case has to be identified and connected to a net of eveniences, part of somebody’s life. So the problem is, What makes a soon-to-be-thing part of somebody’s life, so that it becomes that particular thing? What is the most general answer to this question? Three elementary factors concur and combine: arising|deciding|relating. They are like necessary and universal aspects of the being-to-the-world process.
The arising aspect (A) is the raw, incipient what, which has to be decided (D) as this or that, by way of a correlative symbolic depiction (R). In the process three phenomenic identities come into play: the mind-identity, the world-identity, and the logos-identity. They have been idealized in a number of ways, but in the end it’s just one three-folded self-mirroring process. Its correct conceptualization is possibly the most complex cognitive effort for anybody to attempt. The varieties of A|D|R instantiations and connections engender all act and fact, from the slightest detail to the most elaborate vision. [top]

The prological quest.

Together the A|D|R factors form a steady trio that generates all events, to the point that the factors themselves do not subsist separately, unless as ideas. In order to be thought and spoken of, they must become something in somebody’s evenience, they must meet even when people try to isolate them, and this is what makes them so uniquely tricky to comprehend. It’s much easier to make all sort of ideological constructs out of them than to see and accept their fundamental inconsistence. They should be treated in a pro-ontological way; but a pro-ontological ontology is obviously incongruous.
Unsurprisingly, philosophers have opposed the unsoothing coolness of pure biography in favor of solutions, either dogmatic or skeptic. Fervent rationalisms as well as irrationalism are but escapes from the unbiased indifference of the A|D|R identity. General biography should look for a third, prological way in order to figure out the different nexus linking the A|D|R factors in a single event and in the course of evenience. [top]

Apophatic definitions.

Now my reader is looking for a clearer definition of what I’m talking about, but here’s the problem: In order to define, one has to interlace the A|D|R co-factors (remember the premise [that] always at work) and make them disappear into their own blending. They merge and surface again, respectively, as objectities, subjectities, and mediants. An objectity is an A|D|R concretion where the deciding and relating factors are eclipsed by the arising one. The emerging what looks as a so-it-is, as if the D and R factors could be removed. They are just locally ignored, though.
The same happens to the arising and relating factors when a subjectity overshadows their attendance, and a self-standing who or thinking entity is supposed to subsist and fill the entire being gap. As of mediants, they are frozen references, mentions that carry too far their relating function, like a poem neglectful of its poet and public to the point of substituting for them. Thus the A|D|R co-factors can only be hinted at apophatically, if one endeavors to avoid hypostasis and idealization. [top]

It’s a cloudy sky.

A fictional case will possibly help. Imagine you hear someone saying “It’s a cloudy sky”. If you take for granted the sky to be cloudy, without a doubt about by and to whom, meaning what, to what purpose that sentence was uttered, you objectivize it, you make a so-it-is out of it. Instead, you subjectivize that sentence if you think that someone believes that the sky is cloudy. Or you mediate it, in case you focus on the form and mode of those words in their communicational context.
Now, in ordinary life you cannot do without much objectivizing, subjectivizing, and mediating. If not, you should open your acts to all kind of doubts and re-evaluation: Is the cloud actually cloudy? Did the speaker’s mean today’s sky? Did she mean that sentence or was just repeating it? Was that sentence for real or metaphoric? Sensible people choose precisely what to check and what not, leaving most small matters alone. They want their evenience to be sound, first of all, in what it focuses on. It makes no sense to spend evenience loosely.
At the same time, if everything were treated routinely life would seem perfectly idiotic. An act emerges whenever there’s something to be concerned about. Sometimes concerns are given to hefty questions, more often to lesser or even minimal details. In any case, life’s stream ensues of adjustments between what objectities, subjectities, and mediants are taken for granted (for the time being), and whatever A|D|R new aspects ask to be accommodated. The latter cannot be absorbed as such, though. They take the form of additional objectities etc. The result is a composite collection of objectual, subjectual, and medial facets, which together concur, prologically connected, to one’s existential grasp. [top]

The answer that affords no solution.

General biography’s field lies between the unfathomable singularity of each A|D|R actual blend (the event the way it is lived) and the variety of products that are left behind in the form of facts, things, words, meanings, ideas, doubts, customs, etc. It seems at first that there’s very little to say on such a vast, open-ended field, but this impression is biased, for we are used to build our comprehension (and our feeling of intellectual command) on life’s leftovers.
This is hardly avoidable, and it would be silly to avoid, because most A|D|R facets are recurring. It makes sense to consider a recurring aspect as if it were ‘something‘. If you understand that a certain intonation of speech, in a given language, is made to kindly posit a question, it’s handy for you to usually ignore the many implications needed to connect the question-will and the questioning-etiquette to the question-matter, to its spoken form and tone. You treat the whole of it as a question-thing and see to your best answer.
Such a sound practice meets its wrong end whenever one comes to flatly believe in the independent subsistence of those empirical, pragmatical constructs and wipes clean their A|D|R origin. But it is self-evident, and almost tautological, that an all-encompassing answer like the A|D|R conception cannot afford local solutions. The opposite also is worth considering: As long as we’re looking for local solutions, particularly if we don’t see them as local, general biography cannot be appreciated in its long-term, humankind-wide impact. The same happens to peripheral vision, which we use in bulk, but fail to fully appreciate its worth just because it doesn’t focus on ‘something’. Philosophy was born on the myth of the keen eye; prosophy builds on the integration of central and lateral vision. [top]

Is the A|D|R blueprint really all-inclusive?

For the A|D|R basic concept of evenience to be all-inclusive it is paramount to check its premise [that], because this too, if the assumption is correct, cannot but result from the very same factors. Thus, the sentence “The A|D|R basic conceptualization of evenience is all-inclusive” is either true or false depending on its untold premise. In simpler words, it all depends from how far one is willing to endorse the A|D|R concurrence at all levels. Let’s compare the following cases, where p stands for “The A|D|R factors are all-inclusive”:

i. p.
ii. [It is self-evident that] p is true.
iii. [Phil assumes that] most people act as if p were valid, but it is not.

In case i., the A|D|R concurrence is asserted as if it were an idea, with no awareness of p’s A|D|R envelope. Here p is subjectually false. In ii., there’s some background awareness of the premise [that], but instead of the A|D|R notion one resorts to self-evidence, so here p is objectually false. In iii., p is false on the medial side, because the tacit awareness of the premise does not rule out the possibility of determining the validity of p without mentioning it’s A|D|R frame. Briefly, the general formula of human-like biography is

iv. [A|D|R] A|D|R,

meaning that all-that-is-the-case is basically a brew of the arise|decide|relate seeds behind which there’s always at least one more unaccounted-for arise|decide|relate structure. If this is what we mean by A|D|R blueprint, then it is unfailingly all-inclusive. Its all-inclusiveness cannot be shown outside one’s frame of evenience, though (see point 6). This also shows why live events are the molecules of all being-to-the-world. Moreover, since iv. is recursive, it falls in the realm of prologic.
A self-standing being is a fabricated ideal covering a reductive idea. Outside the A|D|R frame there’s only clusters of matter, amounts of energy, and bits of information, but which is which you could not tell. The A|D|R blueprint represents all kind of being-to-the-world, the germs’ not excepted. It also covers all extraterrestrial life, since for anything to be, a phenomenon must arise and be determined as so and so through a designing medium. The [A|D|R] A|D|R blueprint stands for the being-conscious section of all being-to-the-world, which is typical, although not exclusive, of mankind. Actually, there’s no clear-cut discontinuity, and the border between A|D|R and [A|D|R] A|D|R events is uncertain, because the most fleeting self-conscious reflex is enough to launch the [A|D|R] A|D|R recursion. [top]

Index
The most basic knowledge.
Particular and general.
Inclusion vs. exclusion.
The premise [that].
The one rule.
The A|D|R trio.
The prological quest.
Apophatic definitions.
It’s a cloudy sky.
The answer that affords no solution.
Is the A|D|R blueprint really all-inclusive?
First posted July 15, 2014.