Things Doing Stuff

Things Doing Stuff

Samuel Bird

“I love you.” This is both a sentence in terms of a structure of words into a more complex idea as well as something that I will live out. My two and half years of pre-university education would help me break up this sentence into atomic parts. The “I” in the sentence is the subject. It is the primary fact in the world. The object is “you” as you are that thing that I am pertaining to or acting in relation. Love as a word is the verb, or that which I do. Verbs are sequences in time that measure the change between a prior state and a post state. For example, if I ran, you would note there was a before point and an after destination. With time being what the mind carries with it, it could be more messy unless I defined it in terms of causation rather than sequencing. For example, there needed to be a me to do the loving at hand. Here is an example of a prior fact being neccesary for the next, not in terms of change in time, but to initiate it. Those things that we can see in an instant are what I call “being.” They are the series of facts, conscious or otherwise, that comprise all. “Doing” is that thing they cause in relation to other facts. Asteroids crash, oceans lap onto the beach, and horses run. From this, we have what I like to call “things doing stuff.” These ideas break free of luingustic structure to concepts that proceed us, and to the degree reality varies from this, our mind can’t fathom it. Now that we have our nouns and verbs as that thing thing that is causing and its effects, there is an additional fact predicate logic fails to capture. In the sciences, we have the idea of emergent properties. This is the idea that when an exchange of variables takes place, there is something additional that comes about. If I eat one slice of cake, I feel gleeful and full. Would the further second slice double this? Perhaps no and it would instead give me a stomach ache. This is an example of negative or declining factors to each additonal fact. There are exponentially growing instances as well such as runaway effects that multiply such as greenhouse effects releasing more carbon which in turn makes a greater greenhouse effect. These are incredibly rare external to the mind and assuming our controls for outside variable, we can say that reality must obey math. However, I am always skepctial if the scientist can map onto the world well enough to even lightly approximate outside variables being taken into account. The mind, however, is one place where math does not rule. When I have nothing left to give, I can find something more. When I have been given no love, I can find some to share. For this reason, our minds are ripe for finding emergent properties in their perception that are not included in the world. As the only thing that can have aims, consciousness then doesn’t do so aimlessly. Recessed deep within the mind, but perhaps to the side is the singularity of consciousness. From a point so exact it can only percieve from, it does so and evaluates thusly. All the facts of the world, the nouns, the verbs, and the resultant thusness that proceeds from them, are not the dry facts they were outside of the mind, but drip with the will of that thing we are. 

First we have this being. It is a phenenom or series of such. What are they? Can you ever have something and nothing else, or do you need other facts to be co-relative? For example, show me a vase without spatial properties. Also, how can I have a thing when I can always slice it smaller or add something to it? Perhaps any fact is only an assumption of the mind based on how far out it is zoomed in relation to the alleged fact. Whether there is only a see of infinitiely small or one instance from which there is only part, we have being. Is there being outside of the mind having an impression of it? No matter, because whether this is part of what makes it, we value being. We assess what is by how preferable or desirable it is. From there, we affirm or deny it and with that choose our proximety. What is this thing where we value the objects in the world? I call this value “beauty.” When there is a material instance or phenenom that we value, it is beautiful. In as far as it is co-relative to the opposite end of the value gradient, it is ugly. Much of what we term good and evil or try to make into a consistent ethical system is actually us finding it beautiful. We can even find the next idea beautiful. We then have our knowns or what being does. It is the movement, transition, or reamalgomizing of being. This is the energies of the essential properties to being. This is where sequential changes, causality, or action come about. These are only ebbs and flows of impossibly slicable variables without a mind to percieve them (if they are at all). The mind then solidifies their being and evaluates the nature of this doing verb. This is what we call the “ethical” or the value or beauty behind doing. I value the state of being with you fed over starving so I do the action of feeding you. I would find it ugly for one to have sexual contact with a close relative no matter the veracity of controlling pregnancy. This makes morality subjective as it is derived from the valuing of the subject. However, this does not make it arbitrary as the facts that we value from predate our valuing. For example, I can find a basis in the evaluation of the organism to refuse genocide generally. From this, we now have the value of being and doing as beauty and ethics. However, what of this emergent property? What of this new thing that comes when I read a poem. The words in their exact literality equal a quaint scene or perhaps nothing definitive at all. However, within me these words combine to be more than they are. This emergent property is only found in the mind. In addition, Within that mind is the evaluation of this emergent property. This is what I call “meaning.” I live. We engage with our existence. You live deliberatley. Here we have our nouns and verbs, but they become something more in your mind. They are hard to cram into words as they never had an instance in the world. These simple curves and lines on paper amount to something more in your mind. Perhaps a tale of events across time or vision of facts in a moment come to you from words that didn’t neccesitate so. Some may be scared of this. I have already made evalution of doing and being within the subject. Now, this complex additonal way to create something new and evaluate it is all within the subject? Those concerned would confuse me wanting the world to be so, with finding it so. How then did this meaning barely survive modernism and its later instances? The mind in its effort to make a simple model for the world forget it’s very self. It then could certianly not recall that series of facts only found within it as valuing all outside of it and all meaning inside. From basest of solipsistic fact I can confirm that you can have that precious thing modernity sought to steal from you. No matter what experiences happen around you, them amounting to something more and you valuing that, is free from the constraints of the world around you. Can’t we then run with this and find ourselves deep in delusion? Did you think you could ever be certain of anything else? 

There is this gradient I am aware of that spans between the properply basic and the more supposed. Up until now, I have been more properly basic, but now I am making an assertion more extreme about the world. In doing so, I am skeptically aware of its own contingency. I have made a word, as philosophers do. “Conperbeval” is the word I have in mind. It is a humourously clunky word, but it is easy to remember what it entails. It is the amolgation of the words “consciousness,” “perception,” “being,” and “value.” The sequence is not without consequence as I am implying the causal order of these facts. Again, there is clearly a difference in temporal sequencing, but this is logically possibly seperate from causal necessity. In order to have the “doing” we need a “being.” There is however no fact that is not perceived. If not, you couldn’t prove me otherwise. So then, we need perception to start being. Where does this perception come from? From that singularity of consciousness. We then don’t just structure the world within our minds in predicates, but those things to be put into words are predicated on us. Or at least, the type of thing that we are. 

There is one more type of thing that we have not yet identified. What do we call it when another singularity’s impression comes into the mind and is then valued? This fact left out is that fact we are. We are alien from eachother within our minds and sharing a plane we sense so weakly. However, through your doing I can understand your being, and build an emergent property of your character. I can than talk with you when you are not there and be with you when you can’t see me. Further experience will aid me in exacting my version of you to be more in line with how you view yourself as what your present to the world. I now messily have you in my mind as my eyes bring facts and actions. What is this then called for when I value you as consciousness. I call this “love.” And I do so in reference to you. I know a few things about you if you have read so far through a terribly written book and article. Your patience and charity in attempting to understand the words of a madman speak to the character you have succeeded in building. And now, I will say it again. I love you. “I” as me “ and “you” and you. But this verb, what is it? It is as I have said, the valuing of a soul from its pulling in another. What of these emergent properties this sentence carries? That can’t exist in the world, so let it exist in your mind. What do you think I mean when I say I love you? What does it denote? What story or vision comes to your mind’s eye? What emotions, notions, or feelings of an essence flow past you? Once you have caught what these properties are, what value do you find in it. When you look to everything that is and past everything within you, you may just wonder if it is all just things doing stuff. Whether those things are all material or that stuff exists in a given theory of time don’t change that we have things doing stuff. However, in the sentence before last, there was one word that we can leave out. It is not “just” things doing stuff. There is no reason we should find the only types of facts we posses as anything more than absurd, peculiar, and spectacular. We can’t exist in all possible worlds where we don’t, to realize how special it is that we do in this one. The word “just” would be us ascribing little meaning to all there is, which as I demonstrated, we have full authority to do contrary. Three facts: Being, doing, and emergency. Three values: Beauty, ethics, and meaning. Three more words: I love you. In this case, I as being am doing the the action of writing this thing. I hope you believe me that this assertion is not without its instance.