p.(x) Ethics via Will Freeman
And the use of the watchword "should"...
Instrumental? Nope. I wrote the p.(x) book of ethics from the haphazard use of the word “should” in my book of philosophy; p.(x) = Big Data Determinism. Either a book within a larger title or downloadable as a ‘primer’ to the concepts explored in greater depth within the p.(x). Although the italicized word, “should” appears in the exact same order in both the p.(x) it also appears in the same order in Will Freeman (a literary fiction). The philosophical meanings, commentary and feelings elicited are not always the same, it’s in the contrast of fiction versus epistemology that the fruit of my labour manifests. Like words of fire, I want the words to burn within you, released someday with the same fury that ignites the insatiable thirst for more [knowledge]. These correlations, as I am presenting them, were intentionally structured in this way. A light layer of commentary about deep societal underpinnings that define our narratives and our descent downward. Will Freeman is literary fiction but also a companion title to the p.(x).
Currently, at 108 entries on Ethics, the topics are diverse. The conversation is just beginning.
Duplicate Entries - A Cause for Concern. A Global Warning.
Instances Where Duplicate Entries Exist
(ie. 54 & 55, 56 & 57, 78 & 79, 96 & 97 and kinda 9 & 10)
As a warning, the numbered ethics prefaced with ”duplicate” is a warning in itself. The exception is Ethic 9 and 10, which are false positives in terms of being statistically significant. Ethic 9 introduces the reader to the watch-world of the English language and ironically in the foundations from which we see further. Ethic 10 introduces the claim that proof from abstraction was Hellenic in origin. 54 and 55 are bonified (opposed to bona fide) literary instances intended to compound the sense of singularity at the intersection between meta and physics. 56 and 57 refer to the small measurable differences we fictionalize and then try to realize. I intentionally went against this wisdom, with extreme prejudice, to face a social problem with no immediate answer at any time in the near or subsequent future. The last subheading in Chapter 29 is called Social Inflationary Theory, partially because it’s a gentle tap for cosmology yet fundamentally the theory might actually work with the right social momentum and functional planning to construct this concept into a working sustainable social narrative. My vulnerability is right in front of you with the Social Inflationary Theory; George Steiner opened in Grammars of Creation with a merciful surrender to the peers, poets and politicians that might be reading, “the wounds of negativity”, as Søren Kierkegaard called the scathing scalpel of the critic. It’s easy to criticize, it’s even easier to do nothing, solving a problem is the only one of the three that is intrinsically motivating. Duplicate instances 78 and 79 are Cartesian as it relates with skepticism, whereas 96 and 97 are just restating the algorithm with a whole lot of Eudaemonia thrown in and instrumental-ness for good measure.
Standing on the shoulders of Newtonian Giants
Shoulders contain should so I leave this as an ethical instance because of the axiomatic necessity these rubrics of knowledge play in the house built by Newton. I “should” also point out that the giants don’t end at Newton in this historical recollection, they are pre-Socratic at times and others, Tobe Determined and will be revealing. I realize that the reader will have no idea what these references are and I will remind you that I will continue to push you to the footnotes for further elaboration and explanation.
How important are the footnotes?
Just ask Whitehead. Hardly a pimple, the pastiche at play is firmly a Platononic overture. A symphony of spheres made manifest in the footnotes of the Western canon. Can you hear the mathematics? Of course not, the commentary is more than social, it's inside us.
What are you searching for?
The novelty of Ctrl-F for searching terms within this book continues with the search for religion. Not once in this book of Ethics is religion even mentioned. This wasn’t intentional but here we are.
Excluding the Summary Statement in Chapter 32
Chapter 32 is the final chapter, and happens to be my favourite number and probably the reason I stopped at thirty-two for both p.(x) and Will Freeman. I find it memorable that the sixteen percent on either side of the bell curve is 32. With black swans amongst the midst will it be a hindrance or help when randomness shows Xe’s ugly face? Theoretically, 32 includes any and all black swan events, it contains randomness, with whatever deviations of the mean they show up in. My Summary Statements are my strongest philosophical statements. I am not afraid of appearing overly polemical or even promotional but I don’t think this is the case. I am ALWAYS open to criticism and revision.
Italicized for Good Measure
With one defendable exception, all instances of "should" are italicized. Ethic #100 is part of a fictional dialogue between a man and an android and I felt that shouldn’t italicize an internal conversation of someone I am already conversing with through mentalese, I left it “unitalicized”. The conversation in Ethic #100 examines the socially accepted cruelty of factory farming. Environmental implications are not discussed. Environmental conversations are better articulated elsewhere in the p.(x) book of philosophy (like?).