For me, “for me”, is congruent with the Aristotelian form, a watch word for humility, or phrase of creativity. A desire to give form to information. For me, the pseudo has a function, even in Science. Problem solving, classification, and giving “forme” defines the function and is the identity of identity. One’s function, divided by one’s forme, equals identity. Grounded cogito ergo sum. One is not better than the other, yet function should always be foundational without fixedness. A philosophical preference of forme-over-function is a fallacy; abstract aesthetic idealism. It’s important to point out that neither forme or function are uncontaminated, no “one” man is an island. Societal influences run rampant affecting our perceptions of the material and the metaphysical. This is the variable in the equation. Freud called it the Superego, the consciousness of society as a whole when we extrapolate across multiple individual individuals. The beauty is moving away from the binomial distribution towards pluralistic pedagogy.
Where do we go from here? The probability is 100% that it's not nothing. What are your probabilities? What information are you freely releasing into the vast expanse of the internet? Who controls this data. Benefit of the doubt steers me to thoughts of prosperity. Government authorities and watchdog organizations should be policing the abusive repurposing of data, but this model on Liberty needs revised. The Individual Liberties, Rights and Freedoms that we have come to embrace, and possibly take for granted, must include the data exhaust that we all live and breath. The function of the p.(x) philosophy is to raise awareness and power the people.
forme over function
When we mathematically put Platonic forme over function in a one-to-one relationship, the results are unchanged. Functionality is defined by the functionality of the forme. One, divided by one, equals one. One simple idea is a illusion so data is all that we can test. Tinkering, trial and error, take your pick but observation is the feedback mechanism to evaluate. This type of system is useful in uncertainty or discourses of disorder.
Doubling forme over the same single unit of function nets nothing more than more forme with no added function, perhaps even a decrease in efficiency because of the increase in complexity. As a pluralist who agrees with scalability, I defeat relativism by structuring opinion based on several factors, but structured none-the-less.
Function in the numerator over a lesser forme is Utilitarian and decays to Authoritarianism. Cicero’s On Duties is worth the read as well as the pragmatism of William James et al, and everything by George Orwell.
A Big Data set of individual function/forme statements would liberate the world, empowering a new age of Liberties and define new freedoms. The Gadfly mnemonic listening app was designed to propagate and liberate the mind to new potentialities. This would be the highest forme of functionality imaginable, unattainable perhaps, and in the same category as Laplace’s demon.
The corrective nature of the algorithms would be logical in design. Alerting the user to incongruent thoughts, errors in judgement or aid in identifying bias. Never to change these, only to provide real time feedback to the user.
We have a unit of function, over a unit of subjective matter. Dependent on the number of nodes, or persons, interacting on this apparatus. Multiples of function enhance efficiency. Woo hoo!! These are the aesthetics of the machine mind. Careful what you create. Eliezer Yudkowsky can attest.
function over forme
"It is what you do not know, that matters." - Nassim Nicholas Teleb
Take the materialist empiricist views of truth through the senses from Sextus Empiricus (2nd century AD) to Bacon and Hume to the Logical Positivists; Karl Popper and AJ Ayer. Is this world better than realities through abstract reasoning? The rationalists, the idealists? Plato’s non-physical forme, Kant’s moral laws, and René Descartes with the Mind-Body Problem that persists to this day. Abstract reasoning is a gentle hawk in a sky of doves, without it prosperity would look a whole lot different. We just need to know where to apply it take precautions not to prevent increasingly complex social institutions without a mechanism or relief valve for these sensibilities. Encouraging innovation should solve entitlement and actions of affirmation.
Aristotle was always searching for function and proper place. This was his aesthetic. William James spoke about 'Streams of Consciousness', David Bohm tried to bridge Philosophy with Physics. Irritable aesthetics? Persistent and self-fulfilling, perpetual in time. My tastes are eclectic. Romantic for sure, and always optimistic. Enlightened, Optimistic, Romantic, Eclectic. E.O.R.E. Can you tell I just made that up? I am concerned with the romantics of the past, pitted against the progressive tendencies of the Enlightened ones. Can we be both Romantic and Enlightened and still be Progressive and Pragmatic? I say yes!
These are the economics. The efficiencies under social contract. Os sepi to poli.