Godel's Proof and The Human Condition - The Basic Essays

The Matter of Forensic Integrity

Appendix 1: Darwin Versus The Creator(*c)
Link to Garbage In, Garbage Out
Link to Roget's Thesaurus and 'The System of Human Experience'
Link to Organizational Aspects of 'The Human Phenomenon and Things Human'

Much of 'human affairs' is predicated on beliefs evolved out of 'primitive situations of consequently de_facto ignorance' -'natural rights' as 'self-evident' for example, and therefore an eventual 'knowing right from wrong and good from evil'. -But the fact is that any 'right' either has 'forensic integrity' or it is not 'right' at all.

The idea of 'completely and unambiguously bounded discussion material' is fundamentally mathematical in nature (science implicit). The problem with virtually all other discussion -'non-mathematical' in this respect, is that people are not generally educated to this understanding, critical as it is, because of 'only thus-far intellectual (human) evolution' -the result: virtually all 'important (such) discussion' eventually ends up in only very poorly explorable territory, territory more or less innocently and ignorantly built-in there.
forensic integrity-
essential consistency and nonambiguity in communication (oral or written), and therefore essential reliance upon rigorously qualified definitions and consistent use of language-and-words to the exclusion of 'noumena'.(-from Introduction)

-Human progression and evolution are intrinsically a matter of deliberative capability and forensic integrity -the extent to which communication and discussion can develop with relative consistency and nonambiguity -a matter of 'knowledge discovery and transportability':

If 'integrity of substance and learning' is not addressed during formative years, it tends to become reinforced and resident as 'mere opinion' without such integrity as one grows up. It is a matter, simply, of the material of routine education centering on the tools of society and civilization and not on that 'material and its integrity'. Because of this, people enter society with religious, ethnic and 'political' opinions modified largely by personal circumstance -opinions of tenuous and essentially unimportant substance in quotidian life. Should one go on to higher education in the soft sciences of such material however -law, politics, economics et cetera, that tenuous integrity becomes part of the institutionalized opinion that has so far served to determine the nature and course of society and civilization -ergo 'the human condition'.
[Anyone doubting the importance of 'forensic integrity' need only consider how profoundly the 'absence' of it (US Congress for example) 'infects' legislative discussion with 'continuous honing, reformulation or even repeal of laws' -and further, the Supreme Court below.]

Page 2
As to discussion criteria regarding this essay, then-
Human speech evolved, discussion 'inevitable', one might ask whether there are some kind of criteria that should be decided upon before entering discussion -and there are in that there are essentially three, more or less exclusive classes or domains of substantively different conveyance.

1 - There is, first, the rigorous 'peer review' discussion associated the hard sciences and mathematics wherein 'any questionable language construction' is ultimately refinable into complete non-ambiguity and transportability (below) -discussion closure always possible.

3 - There is, third, the classical discussion of more or less common 'opinion expression and manipulation' in which (typically) 'higher-order, more encompassing substance' is argued or disputed out of frequently noumenal substance or idiomatics of some kind (below) -non-ambiguity impossible because certain words fundamental to the discussion cannot be unambiguously defined; discussion, consequently, is open-ended -the 'proper' substance of morality and immorality, for example.

2 - There is second then -between the two, 'the texturally true and professionally followable discussion' of (generally) 'hard' academics and the soft sciences in which likewise 'higher-order, more encompassing substance is argued or disputed' -but out of 'professionally accepted material and (essentially) no seeming need of transportability' (such as may not be meetable anyhow) -conjecture material, typically, but physically-based, such as 'what function REM sleep serves the brain' and 'how to best prevent interracial fighting among prisoners'.

These distinctions are important in that there is such a thing as a 'transportable nature and course of human evolution and progression and it will be incorporated -and it is textural discussion then (second domain), that is the agency of such first domain material into third domain assimilation -which brings us to the last of these 'criteria':

4 - Thruout these essays, single-apostrophies are generally used to tag 'ideational entities' -'high-order' but fundamentally unambiguous (transportable) material the immediate or local qualification or pursuit of which would be digressive to essay purpose -'higher-order definition existing' as opposed to 'non-transportable substance of inadequate common definition': it is typically material such as is here apostrophied that, used unapostrophied (pursued or not), 'means different things to different people' -'value-based', for example, as opposed to 'validity of value-base' or the 'purpose of life' as compared with 'the nature and course of human evolution and progression'. -The bottom line here is-
When you see apostrophes, BE CAREFUL and do not leap to conclusions.


Page 3
(*b) [The Supreme Court of the US is an especially interesting case in that it actually serves to put forensic integrity into the operations of government by 'testing' (typically) discrete applications of government -laws or not, against The Constitution. The peculiarity of this situation is that The Constitution is itself a construction of ambiguous and imprecise words, but this overall mechanism works nevertheless (however inefficiently), because of the manifest combination of evolutionary process -the certainty of 'ever improving knowledge superceding idiomatics(*6) and noumenalisms', and the dirigiste heurism(*0) inherent 'the highest court of the land' (unless, of course, it happens [unlikely] to be 'loaded with idiots'). It should be noticed, with respect to that Constitution 'ambiguity and imprecision', that it is only a matter of time before something of an inevitable and true Dirigiste Heurism inhabits government and supercedes the constitution itself.]

There are only two modes of non-trivial discussion: explorative -two people working some analysis or resolution of some matter or situation, and instructive -one person communicating knowledge of some such thing to another. The problems with 'non trivial' discussion then, come about thru the evolution of speech as inseparable from evolved, prohominid ignorance and (not uncoincidental) our being ever new-born into such primitivity, thus there is little of 'classical' (thus-far) communication that does not employ words of non-rigorous definition and of meaning in some sense peculiar to each of its principals. This understanding is fundamental to meaningful communication in that only insofar as it is subscribed -hewing to something of forensic integrity, is 'digression averted and discussion successful'(*1); it is only in matters of limited domain, phenomenological or otherwise rigorous, that some measure of 'forensic integrity' obtains(*2).

[One knows that '2+2=4' by fact of its transportability, but one does NOT 'know what he did on the night of January 15' or that 'the Democrats (or Republicans) are responsible for the sorry state of ... (whatever)' -except, perhaps, by presenting phenomenologically-based evidence qualified to that end, accordingly, as 'circumstantial' and/or 'statistical'; likewise, one does not 'know what the framers of The Constitution had in mind' -nor, given human dynamics, does such document (or any such legislation for that matter) have 'forensic integrity' now that, by some stretch of the imagination, it might have had then.]


Page 4
(*e)Man is man because he registers information in a way, physically, that we identify as 'deliberative', and therefore we say he 'cogitates', and for a cogitating man born in ignorance, to register 'response to stimulus' is to develop 'a hierarchy of registration' is to begin the invention of explanation which may have nothing whatsoever to do with his configuration space as 'he thinks he understands it', such understanding as 'may be favorable' to his progression - but only circumstantially so (The System of Human Experience), thus it is NOT true (except as a trivialization) that 'It is the nature of man to ask questions', but it is true that man has evolved (circumstantially) to 'ask' questions and also (eventually) to 'perceive that as his nature' -never surfacing in general then, is the critically incisive question-
Do you understand that you may not, at this particular moment, possess the knowledge necessary to follow a phenomenologically integral argument for (eg) 'the order of things' that does not entail a belief in god? -that properly attributes 'the order of things' to the nature of matter(*3) -that, perhaps, you may not understand what I'm talking about?
[-not to mention the hierarchy implicit these questions?]

-It is misinformation and uncertainty in the facts of human affairs (in politics and economics perhaps most critically) that underlie the human condition, but it is deliberative capability that clearly establishes 'evolving registration of the phenomenology' -increasing knowledge superceding ignorance, conjecture and opinion- as synonymous the evolution of forensic integrity: 'Who best assimilates the constitution of configuration space supercedes to progress and evolve', thus belief in god and other dogmatics may only circumstantially or coincidently vector into knowledge(*4), but cannot ever add to it of themselves -conjecture-and-opinion become knowledge in time (or not) -probability the vector, information with time.
['Does a tree falling in the woods make noise if no one hears it?' is resolvable -transportably, only by successive refinement of definitions.]

There is a perception of the physical world -'Flowers are pretty', 'Music sounds good' and 'There is an order to things'- that (eg) makes the existence of god 'obvious' to most people: 'How else do you explain it? -how did it get that way? -something, Someone, had to do it' -that, further, invests human affairs with dictums of 'propriety' and 'punishment' -'How else do people know right from wrong?'


Page 5
-That one is able to ask such questions however, demonstrates only that such ideas are thinkable and words utterable, and that improbability or meaninglessness can be accepted and promulgated more or less out of circumstantiality; the 'politics of human-being', consequently, 'The resource/environment there for exploitation', 'Might is right', 'Mine, and therefore mine to do with as I choose' and 'Our way of life (customs, religion, habits, government etc) is the right way it should be' then, are the basis of bumbling discussion and irresolution thruout the world where the fact remains that 'knowledge' and 'right' either have 'forensic integrity' or they are not 'right' at all.

['Seeing to the affairs of man' (politics et cetera) and consumer/populist TV-talk-show interviews alike are all incested in their only most superficial difference of material and free-style-areopagitika'd opinionation; this 'appropriated' understanding-and-knowledge ('classical' thinking) is exemplified by early 20th century French/British poet-statesman fundamentalist/Catholic Hilaire Belloc's observation on 'scientific observation' itself (of bacterium description he summarily rejected) -'Oh let us never, never doubt, what nobody is sure about'. -Nor for that matter are scientists (or mathematicians!) themselves free of 'classical' communication, their non-professional and/or personal relationships and discussions no more 'consistent and unambiguous' than lay-others' (even to professional writing, *5) -their politics and families as 'democratically screwed-up' as anyone else's.]

But it is 'political' dialogue in general that is neither exploratory nor instructive, that is rather, one of 'bargaining in dialectic commodities' for which that 'certainty of language' is neither requested nor sought -nor for that matter, possible; it is, rather, dialogue of essentially adversarial mode, driven and buried under layers of idiomatics(*6). Following are excerpts from three September 6, 1993, Los Angeles Times Opinion essays (footnoted below) on essentially unrelated subjects. They are representative of the use of words in 'the resolutions of human affairs' (-context not a factor) that, intrinsically, cannot but 'reprecipitate unintended and undesired re-resolution'.

1 - 'Its survival [American labor] lies in pursuing worker interests worldwide, not continued US domination ... Multinational corporations have no national allegiance nor do they find it necessary to appease unions.'(*7)

2 - 'Vouchers would offer less bureaucracy and better education... The worse things get, the more credence for the [left's] basic line that American society will never get better unless they are ... put in charge.'

3 - 'Middle East: The Israeli-Palestinian agreement is a triumph of realism, not virtue, and of mutual self-interest.'(*8)

[The language-and-words of the Clinton impeachment proceedings at the time of this update is 'a torrent more of the same'(*9). Be that what it be-]

Page 6
Anyone arguing that the language in these excerpts is 'mere rhetoric in advance of realistic, hard-coin bargaining' misses the point; it is 'hard coin' at the bargaining table, but the substance arbitrated, manipulated and traded remains religion, ethnicity and other 'natural human rights and freedoms' -'your concerns after mine and ours'. It is of absolutely no concern that the reader may think 'it doesn't work that way'; 'what it is a matter of' is mankind's classical evolution having no choice but to give way to his increasingly deliberated evolution -where 'not thinking it works that way' is superceded by the phenomenology of 'it working that way regardless'. The child that tells a neighbor's, 'You can't walk here; this is my sidewalk' becomes -uncorrected, eventually the adult that 'instructs' someone not his to instruct, 'righteously' demands answers from 'someone not his to question', physically touches 'someone not his to touch' -and goes to war following that -'noise in the system'.


The importance of 'forensic integrity' can not be exaggerated: no one has an obligation to engage assertion, discussion or question of any kind that lacks forensic integrity -except to introduce or establish it: it is a fact of human-being that 'the nature, constitution and course of human-being' -of life-style-and-quality ultimately, can heuristically alone be determined(*a) -and to try to address and work that material without 'forensic integrity' is to continue bumbling it, ergo 'the continuing human condition'.
There is a bottom line to 'the matter of forensic integrity', and it is that if all the various principals of a discussion cannot wrap their hands entirely about 'solely unambiguous material of discussion' -even to the inclusion of statistical qualification if so necessary, it may be that there is absolutely no substance whatsoever in whatever conclusions they come to.


Back to downloaded Home Page or Download the Home Page or back to Complete list of Essays and Appendices

(9302) Last modified: April 7, 2008


*0 - dirigiste heurism: that form of government which incorporates 'the discovered phenomenology of the configuration space' (science and mathematics) and 'codifies' that phenomenon of discovery in such a way (government) as to provide for its own heuristic restructuring as a function of the implicit (genetic imperative) 'best well-being and viability of the organism-whole'. (-from Appendix 1) of The Nature and Course of Human Evolution as The Basis of Economic Policy - Part 3)
*1 - Not that digressive discussion may not be 'informative,' but that it is typically digressive to some intended end.
*2 - The nature of knowledge as 'language-and-words communicable' is the subject of the monograph, Organizational Aspects of 'The Human Phenomenon and Things Human'.
As to 'transportable knowledge' then, knowledge communicable with 'forensic integrity'-
phenomenology is that of 'system particulars' [that is, of the human configuration space], and it is transportable only if it has a representational or symbolic mapping '1-to-1 consistent and unambiguous the mapper's knowledge', that is, without hermeneutics of any kind. Phenomenology may include for example -and at all levels of abstraction, such property/concepts as finiteness and infinity, serial-and-cross-hierarchization (in the broadest sense), state-table and 'machine that goes by itself' mechanisms (next), and most importantly, statisticality to qualify the probabilistic interrelationships of all elements of the system and its space with each other for intrinsic incompleteness of 'axioms'. -Phenomenology, in other words, is either transportable or it is not phenomenology. (-from The System of Human Experience)
*3 - It is the nature of matter that it has 'properties', and of various of those properties that 'some matter coalesce in some way as to manifest an evolving, registering system' -eventually 'evolving deliberation' for example, of 'the nature of matter'. This, roughly and no more, is the beginning phenomenology investing 'the nature and constitution of human-being', and either we subscribe such characterization -phenomenology and human-being, to the exclusion of any other or we subscribe, arbitrarily, any other to the confusion of knowledge. (-from Introduction)
*4 - The evolution of knowledge may be characterized as 'the supercession of what we incompletely know by what we discover more definitively'...
(-from
Part 3 of The Nature and Course of Human Evolution As The Basis of Economic Policy.)
*5 - In April 1998, The Atlantic Monthly published EO Wilson's misnamed The Biological Basis of Morality where, contrary to what the title suggests -a validation of 'moral principles', essay substance is more properly that of The Biological Basis and Etiology of (the Existence) of Morality' -that is, preclusive of 'principles' (any) and their 'propriety'. This 'subtlety' is of the greatest importance in that it identifies the manifest preponderance of material lacking fundamental forensic integrity in human communication -dogged interminably, therefore, with 'further clarification'.
*6 - 'the idiomatics': a body of generalized beliefs, thought processes and modes of confrontation and expression variously common to most peoples of the world, essentially 'what it is the nature of things to be' (especially men and women: 'You can't change human nature') or 'what they ought to be'. They include for example, both the 'inner rights' of 'looking good' and 'having fun' and the outer but universal interrelationships and expressions of 'nurturing (soft) womanhood', 'provident (strong) manhood' and the 'propriety of having children', of 'belonging' and the 'primacy of one's kind and ways' (-and their expressions of shame and insult -'saving face', machismo, 'gay pride', 'self esteem' etc), of practices in 'powers unknowable to us' (religion of any form) and of various work and play criteria and ethics -'merit', 'worth', ownership et cetera. (-from Kernel Properties of The Hominid Organism)
*7 - It must remain forever unclear how and why use of these dialectically loaded phrases may or should be expected to lead to resolutions of any kind: 'survival'? -worker interests worldwide? -US domination? -no national allegiance? -necessary to appease? (-et cetera in excerpts 2 and 3 which are in no way material-peculiar).
*8 - The body of text following this political statement is significantly more dogmatic and inflammatory: see LA Times article - Perspective on Mideast Peace.
*9 - The American 'legal' system may well be the masterpiece dismissal of forensic integrity -'leading the witness' is objected-to (and perhaps even 'sustained'), but leading jurors by 'forensically unsound insinuation' on the other hand, is not, thus who has and/or can best afford 'best winning strategy' wins -'forensic integrity be hanged' -and therefore the existence of 'pro bono' work by default.
*a - It is 'the nature of life-style-and-quality' -convolutions of the hominid brain, 'connections' potential of threading ever more connections in nature, breadth and depth of the phenomenology of the configuration space- that identifies and determines 'sophistication' as an ultimating criterion of human-being. Science or technology or 'art', it is this sophistication by which one hominid 'understands' the inability of another to grasp something of another aperture into the further phenomenology of matter and, essentially, supercede him. -It would be presumptuous in the highest degree to identify 'the flights into phenomenology unknown' of either Kristoff Penderecki (De Natura Sonoris) or Kurt Godel (Godel's Proof) for example, as other than manifesting the continuing evolution of hominids by supercession thru deliberative capability. (-from Kernel Properties of The Hominid Organism

(*c)
Appendix 1
Darwin Versus The Creator

The religionist or believer of any kind whatsoever -'natural rights and freedoms' and 'the superiority of American free-enterprise, capitalist democracy' included, is 'free' to believe anything he wants -but I am NOT in any way his to subject or institutionalize to those beliefs.

Like it or not, 'Darwinian evolution' is a 'theory' -like 'creationism', in that there is no way to develop ANY logical argument without assumptions of some kind and the incontrovertible evolution of all knowledge out of neonate ignorance. Be that what it be then, and beyond 'merely raw, fundamentalistic creationism' (the universe 'sprung' into existence some 3,000 or whatever few years back), the only difference between 'Darwinism' and 'evolution-believing, intelligent-design creationism' is the latter's 'sleeping-giant of a designer' in the background.

Ideally then, on any useful engaging of 'evolution' -purely biological process in one sense or another- there should be no 'failure to communicate' between the darwinist and the creationist except perhaps over the factuality or interpretation of data or what seen -'intelligent design' not an element. Why then, does this exist as a problem at all? -And the answer is that discussion on 'the nature of evolution and how it operates' is a discussion (even conjecture) on the unambiguously physical material of evolution -one distinct subject; discussion on 'How it came so to be or is designed so to be', on the other hand, is a distinctly different subject of distinctly and inaccessibly conjectural material -unrelated to the science at hand. Why then introduce such material extraneous to 'the nature and how of evolution'? -and why engage it? -And the answer again is that we do so because we continue to evolve out of ignorance and have so evolved that we ask questions whether they are answerable or not -or even make sense -so the ignorant asks, 'And how did it get that way except for someone or something to have so made it'! -and we pass that on to some next ignorant passing along the way -ergo 'intelligent design'.

Nor does it end there, for having brought the 'designer' into existence, the believer is now 'convenienced' into ascribing all kinds of qualities and capabilities to him for situations other than evolutionary -'what He wants us to do' and 'how He wants us to be':

Oh, let us never, never doubt,
What nobody is sure about.
-Hilaire Belloc
The bottom-line question here is why should any 'scientist in his right mind' get into such 'successively transcendentalizing' discussion? -perhaps only to mislead himself into designing new 'isms' of his own? -Why not just walk away from it?

14th century philosopher, William of Occam(*d), observed that when one introduces something 'unrelated to the discussion', he corrupts the integrity of what is 'an experiment by discussion'.
[*d - Occam's Razor: It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.]