OS 012 in Theory

©2005 R.Viharo

OS 012 is both a playful and a descriptive title. ‘O’ and ‘S’ are multiple signifiers, containing more than one meaning. In the playful sense, OS stands for ‘Operating System’, as in ‘an Operating System for Human Being’, merely referencing the twist between binary code for computers (1/0) and a natural ‘ternary’ code of perception for complex and novel human being (0/1/2).

Ha ha.

‘O’ and ‘S’ can also signify ‘’Objective’ and ‘Subjective’, as OS 012 references the play between ‘object’ and ‘subject’, or the perceived and the perceiver. It can also stand for ‘Open Source’, which is a reference to not only how the idea came about, but how it continues to be refined into a ‘one for all’ dialectic. OS 012 is upgradeable via debate (www.highintelligence.com), and you can be the one to do it. In this sense, I am merely a contributor to the OS, and nothing more. How this process happens we will discuss at a later date, but it is important to note that OS 012 was formed, birthed via the conflict of idea on the internet by many people, and in this regard is essentially understood as an imperfect document constantly refining itself through it’s own set of ‘rules’.

The ‘Rules’ of the dialectic. The rules are observable, and thus true to all points of view, regardless of personal philosophy, politics, metaphysics, or religion.

1.)All human dilemma and problem can be said to be resolved when all sides or points of view ‘win’.(Non zero sum strategies exalt human interactions.)

2.)Ideas are the seed or genesis of all human doing and action.

3.)All ideas spread, multiply in a way that can be likened to cell division. Ideas ‘copy’or dupiclate themselves exponentially.

4.)All ideas are in conflict, or have the potential for conflict.

5.)Human beings are not ideas, and are not in conflict.

6.)All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery (both true and false at once), and quantified perceptionally as 0 (m), 1(t), or 2(f).

Conclusion: Ideas which can be shown or proven to be true remain dominant in human perception through the conflict of idea, both immediately and historically.

OS 012, or any idea that is like OS 012 which contains or applies these principles, can be likened to a dominant or master meme, an idea that cannot be defeated in the realm of continued rational discussion or application, and can be said to spread, copy itself and defeat all ideas in conflict with it, whether there is agreement or non agreement until all sides or all points of view win in the localized conflict of idea.

In terms of OS 012, this would suggest that this idea would literally keep spreading and copying, defeating ideas until a rational and humane world peace is achieved.

As a dialectic, OS 012 operates in a ‘tit for tat’ gaming method, which will be described in full detail in ‘OS 012 in Practice’

The ‘Win Win’ or ‘Non-Zero Sum’ Dialectic of Perception.

OS 012 is a dialectic that utilizes a ternary form of logical thinking, or a natural logic that ‘comes in threes’. These ‘three’ are symbolized as 0, 1, and 2.

The environment that accentuates and propels this dialectic is online internet communication or via written discussion via tit for tat methodology, which we will discuss in a future section.

When applied, OS 012 insures a ‘win win’ for conflict resolution. In this sense, OS 012 can be likened to Game Theory, and as such places a non zero sum value on the conflict of idea to arrive at continuous solution. So in this sense, it is an efficient martial strategy for conflict. And it is argued that the gaming dynamic of OS 012 can be applied successfully to all conflict, between man vs. woman, nation vs. nation, or brother vs. brother.

OS 012 can also be used to resolve internal conflict, or conflicts of a philosophical or metaphysical nature, such as resolving paradox. When used or applied to more subtle realms and intense environments, one can come to profoundly raise or increase their intelligence or perception until one has a ‘giest’ or ‘Ah-ha!’.

Before we go any further, let’s define what ‘dialectic’ is, how it is used, and most importantly in what sense OS 012 is a dialectic.

St. Augustine said that ‘dialectic is the science of arguing well’. I define dialectic as ‘an art and science of asking questions and determining how we understand the answers, and then how those answers determine how we perceive our environment or reality’.

As a method of inquiry, it was first used and developed in ancient Greece by Socrates, whose method of asking questions appears to have annoyed the hell out of half of ancient Greece, thus garnishing him the name ‘The Gadfly of Athens’. Simply put, Socrates would argue until he exposed the contradiction in the dialogue. Once the contradiction was arrived at, the querent would have ‘wisdom’. At this point, it is important to note that the notorious Socratic Irony is ‘ I know that I do not know’.

So in this sense, Socrates can be said to have employed his dialectic with the honest observation that he necessarily asked questions not only because did he not ‘know’, but because he could be certain that he ‘knew not’. Socrates knew that all truth must be able to be experienced or perceived with the same qualifier of certainty that ‘I know that I do not know’ naturally contains.

Essentially, knowing that we do not know is a simple truth that we can all be certain about simply because we can be more certain about when we don’t know that by when we do. By coming to understand and honestly perceive what we do not know, we can come to more properly appreciate and define with ease that which we do.

This principle is at the very ‘heart’ of the Socratic Dialectic, and without ‘knowing not’, there would be no sense of ‘asking the question to come to know’. As in the Socratic dialectic, as in OS 012.

To work the dialectic, one must be able to perceive ‘knowing not’, and then simply ask questions, the most important being ‘how’, invoking objective perception. To perform this step, cold honesty must be invoked, without honesty, one is deluded into thinking that one has all the answers, and refuses to ask appropriate questions due to fears of ridicule or exposure of being ignorant.

The Socratic Dialectic as a meme went from the caves and tablets of the ancient Greece to become the standard form of debate used up to today in the court of law, including up to the US Supreme Court as well as an unbelievably large collection of entertainment attorneys in Hollywood whom have spliced the Socratic Method with ‘ooze’ and ‘shpiel’. We can see how a few ideas discussed and hard-won through ‘rational and logical’ discussion 2, 500 years ago still survived the conflict of idea historically to this very day.

Which brings us to the next incarnation of dialectic, which is philosopher Georg Wilhelm Hegel’s ‘historical dialectic’. Hegel was an influential philosopher from the 17th century whose ideas suggested that ‘spirit’ or ‘giest’ formed historically through a dialectical process, a ‘gentle rhythmic dance’ consisting of three basic ‘stages or descriptions of being’, also ternary in nature. Thesis, or a new ‘giest’ or idea that is put forth as an objective truth,(you could consider at this stage that OS 012 is a thesis being presented to you), an ‘antithesis’, which is any idea in conflict with the proposition (such as what ever skepticisms you may have about what your reading), and then the natural ‘synthesis’ of the exchange, or what you will think about all of this after a few years of integration.

History, suggested Hegel, was a result of ideas synthesizing into higher forms of complexity through this ternary process. Hegel then asked one of the most profound questions any human being could ask; “How is it that the historical dialectical process appears to always led mankind closer and closer to ultimate liberation?”

As a simple and agreeable example of how the historical dialectical process can be described to work, Hegel put forth his ‘thesis’ about ‘historical dialectic’ and the ‘end result’ leading closer to ‘human utopia’ and philosopher Karl Marx, Hegel’s student and father of Communist ideals, presented the ‘anti-thesis’ which was ‘Dialectical Marxism’. (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s said Hegel was ‘standing on his head’ and claimed to put him ‘back on his feet’) Then, we can see how Karl Marx’s Dialectical Marxism then became a new thesis that found antithesis and synthesis in Communist and Socialist ideals for human administrative system. Then, we can see how the ‘atheist standard’ of Karl Marx influenced writer philosopher Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’, since early Russia, Ayn Rand’s early environment, gave way to atheism and the exposure of the irrationality of the orthodox church, and then how Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is the synthesis of laisse faire philosophical capitalism and American individualism which stemmed from the Judeo Christian dialectical process with the atheism of Dialectical Materialism.

As we can see, or come to understand or model, the ‘dialectical process’ can be understood as ideas believed to be true synthesizing with ideas that are also believed to be true, and this descriptive process of ideas or memes conflicting then synthesizing was first noted more than 200 years by philosopher Georg Hegel. In modern hip nomenclature, this is simply observed as ‘memetic evolution’ which references a quirky branch of biology and mathematics called ‘Memetics’, the study of idea which was coined by Richard Dawkins in his landmark book, ‘The Selfish Gene’. A ‘meme’ is a kitschy word for an idea, and Dawkins noted that ‘memes’ can be jokes, songs, sonnets, or any idea that can be said to ‘replicate’ or passed on from user to user.

So, first then, let it be understood that it is accepted and argued as true that OS 012 is a simple result of the global and historical dialectical process, and as such, contains the essence of all effective ideas distilled throughout history through such process. Thus, we can come to find and see for ourselves what it was that Hegel and Socrates could perceive by becoming aware of the natural dialectical process, the game of the memes, inside simple discussion.

                                 Rule # One:
       All ideas (memes) can either be True, False, or Mystery.

So let’s begin here. The first thing we notice when using the dialectical language of OS 012 is note, deconstruct and distinguish, perceive the ideas being discussed or presented into three basic sets. The first rule of the dialectic is that all ideas can be divided and placed into three sets, true(1), false(2), or mystery(0).

This we can say with absolute certainty about any idea we encounter. This is the basic proposition and thus ‘rule’ of the dialectic. All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery. If this idea is false, then it would suggest that an idea could be presented that was neither true, nor false, nor mystery, and in two years, no one has ever demonstrated, or even attempted to demonstrate such an idea. So in this sense, we can now say that this is a ternary set of classifying all ideas into their basic essence of not what we think the ideas are, but rather ‘how they appear to us’ in one of three ways, true, false, or mystery.

We can go into what defines true, and false, and mystery at more refined detail and how we arrive at these three basic sets at another point, but for now and the sake of moving forward, let’s just further note that all ideas that are defined to be ‘true’ in the empirical sense are ‘formed via a honest perceptional process’ that we can identify as ‘rational thinking’ and in application rational thinking becomes exalted into a ‘scientific process’ whose ideal is ‘objectivity’.

So all ideas that we can agree are ‘true’ share similar ‘essences’ which are signified simply by the number ‘1’. How we come to signify these as the natural number ‘1’ in the cardinal sense will be addressed at another point. But for now, let’s just say that 1 symbolizes or is equal to, in the perceptional sense, or contains the same essence as true, objectivity, honesty, rationality, and finite. One cannot be honest without simultaneously being rational. One cannot be honest and not arrive at what they perceive to be true. One cannot both ‘lie’ and be said to be ‘rational’. The essence of rationality is honesty. No honesty, and all thought crumbles into delusion. To invoke rationality we use honesty, to invoke honesty is certainly rational.

So we then can say that the proposition “All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery” is thus a ‘true’ idea, and an idea that can be demonstrated to be true with the same process that defines it, both tautologically (via the contained logic of it’s definition) and empirically (provable to others via repeated steps and measures).

                           Ideas and Perception.
All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery because all we can perceive can either be true, or false, or mystery. This function of our perception or awareness ‘tags’ the information we come across into three distinct sets, signified as 0, 1, and 2.

What is an idea? Let’s define idea as a ‘experiencial information'. Tricky. This includes words, thoughts, images, or sounds that we experience inside of us. Since it is a subjective conceptual object, the only way to ‘prove’ that ideas exist as ‘true’ by our definition of ‘true’ in empirical sense in the dialectic is simply via experience.

They are ‘self experiential’ in their truth value. In this sense, ideas themselves are like tiny ‘mystical’ experiences of information. Or, we know ideas are true mainly because we all experience them internally. We don’t experience ideas floating around in our environments outside of us, we experience them ‘inside of us’ in the conceptual sense. Only I can experience ‘my idea’, only you can experience ‘your idea’. They are subjective conceptual objects that draw our attention, or perception, internally and onto them while they ‘signify’ something else. For those that are familiar with Semiotics, please note that I am using the word ‘signifier’ in a distinguishable sense in this regard, and although the dialectic naturally touches upon many principles in linguistics, OS 012 was not developed or inspired from Semiotics by any means.

Ideas can be said to be conceptual signifiers that are subjective or personal experiences.

Understanding or becoming aware of such a vast internal arc is how OS 012 expands our perception. By quantifying our ideas into three sets of true, false, or mystery, which exist naturally, we become ‘aware of us becoming aware’.

Objective Perception of truth value. (1 = True, Mind, Rational, Order, Science. Our Point of View. )

Historically , we can see that ‘Western’ Philosophy developed into logic, science, mathematics, linguistics and utilizes a process that attempted to use rationality and objectivity as it’s only method to agree on what is true. In the western sense, we agree on what is true when it can be empirically proven to be true to others through repeatable steps with formal rules. That which is empirically true is that which can be repeated again and again for others to see for themselves. The scientific method. The formal rules of logic and mathematics.

It is simple to note and observe that anything that can be agreed upon has existence in our environment as true. If it was not in our environment as true, then it could not be agreed upon formally.

This is the universal objective standard for truth. In the western logics and philosophies, generally, there is no logical value that is placed upon ‘personal experience’ as a value for truth.

This is human beings collective refinement of truth. By seeing how others relate and respond in similar ways to how we relate and respond, we can come to have a clearer idea of order in human nature.

In the Western logical sense, objectivity is idealized, and personal experience is discarded as irrelevant in revealing a formal truth.

In the west, no matter how profoundly you experience something as true, you must be able to verify it for others via an agreeable set of parameters, and if you cant, then your truth is most certainly irrelevant for the rest of us. This is the world not of opinions, but empirical observations.

Subjective Perception of truth value. (2 = False, Feelings, inspiration, chaos, irrational, Art. My or Your Point of View)

Philosophically, in the East, it was the subjective experience that was sought after to arrive at truth. Personal illumination or inspiration. Ah ha! In the personal illumination of the east, being, not thought nor any formal logical equation is the pure truth, and the ‘objectivity’ of what ‘everyone agrees about it’ is what is false from this perspective. The mind is clear, there is no rational thought. Truth is established via profound experience.

Profound experience. as the basic quantifier for truth as an experience of pure being that transcends language, rational thinking, or logical expression.

In the common sense that you and I can understand, personal experience is our natural subjective quantifier for what we personally believe to be true. You know this book exists because you are experiencing reading it right now. You know that this sentence exists only because you exist. We don’t need to have Gödel develop a theorem that proves that this sentence exists when you exist. We honestly express our personal truths as not science, but art. Expression. And in expression it is true artistically and experientially, even though it’s ‘verbal or written’ expression may be false logically or even rationally from an objective POV.

This is the universal subjective standard for truth. We can draw truth from our subjective environment intuitively, but we cannot draw truth from it objectively or rationally. This is the world of opinion, not observation.

OS 012 allows for both values of truth to function rationally inside of the dialectic.

So now, let’s observe also that OS 0 12 is a meta signifier, or, an meta idea about how we perceive idea. Or, a concept with which we can conceptualize all concepts.. It has now become such a signifier simply for the fact that it has defined into basic and common perception the two distinctions of how we arrive at truth, and since all reality can be understood individually as simply ‘that which we believe to be true’, we have just defined our two distinct meta environments, the many subjective (internal or personal, false in the objective sense) and the one objective (external and shared, false in the subjective sense) environment.

Simply, philosophically this is often referenced as Eastern vs. Western thinking. The basic distinctions of Eastern (mystical) and Western (logical) thought. This conflict of idea is one of the first conflicts that OS 012 resolves, and finds the natural harmony existing between the two of them. Indeed, both are basic to human being, both become exalted in human being, and one is never to be chosen over the other as more valid in the dialectic. Both are perfectly functioning, like your left arm and your right arm. To choose one over the other only brings lopsided ness and confusion.

OS 012 often descriptively uses the terms Art and Science to define these two essences of process into a simple objective language we all can mutually relate to and understand. Art and Science are the two basic contributions individuals make to humanity that involve these two distinct forms of perception where they are ‘exalted in full’.

Objectivity (one) is a value for ‘our truth’ and is exalted in science, formal languages, mathematics, logic, and in common language and every day life it is exalted simply by honesty and rational thinking, communication. This is a natural distinct form of perception, found in our language. All formal languages in mathematics and logic depend upon the observer to be honest and agree to a formal and functional set of rules. Agreements based upon honesty and rationality. If there is no honesty, then all of logic and mathematics crumbles into delusion and poetry.

Subjectivity (two) is a value for ‘my’ or ‘your truth’. If I experience a profound dream, or fall in love, or have an opinion, those are my truths, for me, and not for anyone else. These are my ‘feelings’. We don’t want formal languages here. To express my love and inspiration, I certainly don’t wish to think it through and be ‘logical’, being careful to avoid ‘meaninglessness’, I write instead a song, or a poem to express ‘my truth’, stream of consciousness, no reasoning, rather going with the inspiration whose essence is ‘experience’ and ‘feeling’. In subjectivity, we know that the words are not the experience, but we know that we can experience the words. I know I exist not when I ‘think’, like Descartes famous proposition, but when I ‘feel’. Thus, ‘feeling’ is the essence of personal truth.

It is important to note that subjective ideas, which are naturally creative, service us in a distinct function than objective ideas. Objective ideas help us ‘map’ out our environments, and wish to work for all of us. Subjective ideas merely need to work for us as individuals, not for us collectively. They are an expression solely of a point of view.

When there is disagreement, there is merely some confusion over a subjective idea (2) being confused to be a objective (1) idea, or an objective idea that is not being acknowledged as such.

                                    Rule # 2
              All ideas conflict or have the potential for conflict.

So, we have defined in a limited sense ‘true’ and ‘idea’. The next proposition that we argue to be ‘true’ is that all ideas conflict or have the potential for conflict.

So what is conflict? Using the language of the dialectic, conflict is defined merely as two or more ‘1’s’, or truths, that wish to occupy the same conceptual space at the same time. Since this is impossible, there must be a challenge, or a fight, to see which ‘1’ is best equipped to occupy such space.

For example, in nature, there can be only one male bull that mates with the female cow, thus, two male bulls will fight to see which one gets to give the female their best genetic ‘ideas’ for offspring. We see this conflict of ‘most effective idea’ in the race of sperm to the egg. We will cover this natural gaming in nature at another point.

In dialogue and human conflict, we cant have two conflicting true ideas in the same theorem at the same time. 2 + 3 = 5 and cannot equal both 5 and 6 at the same time. In formal languages, there is always 1 true answer, object, or value for each axiom, string, or theorem. That 1 is always true, and never false. One true answer and an almost infinite number of possible false answers.

As in nature, again, as in our ideas. Conflict in nature appears to serve the process of refining efficiency. True ideas conflict and will always conflict with other ideas believed to be true for the same purpose, to produce the most efficient idea that equally serves both the individual, and everyone. Rational and honest thinking has proven itself to be the most efficient process with which to arrive at collective or objective truth.

Eventually, nature insures through conflict that only the most intelligent and refined ideas will survive. So in this regard, honesty and rationality are ‘weapons’ in the conflict of idea.

All ideologies competing worldwide in the conflict of idea use either the objective qualifier for truth, that is, empiricism, objectivity, rationality, science, or the subjective qualifier for truth, personal illumination, dream, vision, opinion, or some combination of both of them. Thus, we can eventually come to use the dialectic to distinguish between objective and subjective truths, and also come to see where one confuses objective truths as subjective truths and subjective truths as objective truths in terms of the conflict of idea.

Essentially, we don’t know what each other mean because we cant agree on how we arrive at that which we call ‘true’, and by default, we cant even agree on what the ‘conflict’ is.

In the conflict of idea over what is true, only one perception can be accurate in the objective sense, while all perceptions are accurate in the subjective sense.

Once we understand the dialectic we can perfectly tell which ‘true’ is ‘true’. When we use the dialectic, which means simply to apply these principles that are being written into language in this book, we ‘game’ the conflict of idea to arrive at the ‘win win’, and use the ‘conflict of idea’ as a non zero sum source of refinement for both sides to ‘win’ the conflict.

We can do this because of another truth that is both very true in the eastern sense, and can be argued as rationally true in the western sense.

The dialectic allows us to clearly distinguish what exactly an ‘idea’ is.

                                 Rule #3
             Ideas are the root of all human action and doing.

Every advancement in human civilization starts with an idea. Every individual action we take as individuals starts with an idea. This is a basic observation that all human beings can make. Before I write this, I must have the idea of what to write. Even ‘writing’ itself first was an idea.

As babies, we are born virtually devoid of all ideas, except those ideas that are engrained in us as ‘instincts’, of which there are simply two. The idea of ‘sucking’ and ‘holding’. As we slowly mature, we gain ideas from our parents or those whom raise us. The most basic actions we take, eating, going to the bathroom, putting on clothes, all of these things are taught to us as ideas that we slowly learn to ‘action’.

Human being ‘does’ what our ideas ‘are’. If our ideas at their root signify an environment that is misery, then our actions will eventually produce misery. If our ideas are based upon ‘win-lose’ or zero sum perception, then our environment comes to reflect that. If our environment reflects ‘win-lose’, then that becomes the inspiration for ‘win-lose ideas’.

Ideas are the seeds of our actions. So what inspires our ideas, inspires our actions. Since our actions create human environment, and our environment in turn inspires idea, we can say that this is a synergistic relationship. ‘We create ideas, and ideas creates us’. Altering human environment can alter human idea, altering human idea can alter human environment. When we apply the dialectic, we focus on the ‘ideas’ in the ‘words’ inside of a ‘rational environment’ (internet), and simply let human nature take her course. Buckminster Fuller was famous for suggesting that we don’t need to change human being at all, we simply need to change human being’s environment, and by doing so, human being will change herself. This ‘rule’ of the dialectic is part of the strategy of ‘OS 012 in action’, and will be discussed at a later date.

                                  Rule # 4
All ideas spread and increase in number. The Nature of an idea is to ‘go’.

All ideas appear to increase in number in a way that can be likened to cell division. Ideas ‘divide, add, and multiply’. There is a rhythm to their motion.

The concept of ideas spreading, replicating themselves is a study in the new science of Memetics. Memetics or the study of ‘meme’ was formed by famous biologist Richard Dawkins in his book ‘The Selfish Gene’. He noted the similarity between gene replication and the replication of ideas, and a generation of study has taken place since on the topic.

Without going into the more intricate aspect of Memetics, which is surely not my topic to elaborate on, let’s just say that what science can come to say about the dynamics of biological nature, science can begin to say or observe about our ideas. Ideas appear to have a distinct nature unto themselves that is similar to genetic and biological nature.

We may need to be a molecular biologists to study genes, but we don’t need to be molecular biologists to study ideas, since we can just observe them via our natural experiences with them.

The nature of an idea is to ‘go’. Ideas can be said to ‘copy’ themselves onto their hosts, human being, and Memetics likens this process and often refers to idea as ‘virus’. A virus is not a living thing, it is simply a cluster of genetic information, and meme, like a virus, is information that can spread and duplicate itself.

But human being is not passive in this regard, we also actively inflame those same ideas, tag or ‘spin’ them either true, or false, or mystery. Most ideas, by the time they spread to us as individuals, have thus already a strong current of either ‘true’ or ‘false’ already behind them.
On the online version of the dialectic, which is meant to be a bit puzzling and certainly not formal, this is referenced in the example of someone calling out ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. We don’t stop to debate the ‘truth’ of the meme, we immediately tag it ‘true’ and get the hell out of there, instinctually. During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the meme ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ was played the same way. Many could not question it, because it went against our sense of survival and fear. Many of us tagged it as ‘true’ and perceive the world events in a specific way because of it.

Again, this process of ‘spreading of idea’ can be understood as ternary in nature, and can be divided into three sets.

Set A .When ideas ‘spread to us’. Reception. Like this book contains ideas that are currently in this set for you as you read this. You are ‘receiving’ these ideas, and in this sense, until you determine or allow these ideas to be either true or false, they are mystery. This stage relates to 0, mystery.

Set B When ideas spread ‘inside of us’. Integration. This is the stage where you determine or accept the true or false value from the idea for yourself. You will spin or tag the idea with one of these two values, no matter what you call it, it will signify either ‘true’ or ‘false’ perceptionally. This stage relates to 2, false.

Set C, when you now spread the idea or concept, relative to your own point of view. Transmission. This stage relates to 1, truth.
Notice the binary distinction between Set A and Set C, input and output. Notice how your Set A is my Set C.

Ideas are always appearing as either true, false, or mystery and either in one of three stages of spreading, reception, integration, and transmission in the individual.

Ideas can be said to create us conceptually, as we create them conceptually.

In terms of History and social and cultural advancement, evolution is essentially the result of ideas multiplying and refining themselves, such as Hegel’s historical dialectic suggests philosophically and Memetics covers biologically.

This process, ideas conflicting and spreading themselves amongst passionate human hosts is the environment OS 012 was birthed in, and thus, we have a natural ‘synergy’, a harmony, between all ideas to view all ideas.

                                      Rule#5
Human Beings are not ideas. Human beings are not in conflict, our ideas are.

This is essentially one of the most profound ‘truths’ of the dialectic, which is in harmony with all of eastern thought, yet arrived at and proven by a western rational proposition argued as ‘true’. It is not merely a piece of Eastern Wisdom, it is a rational observation made about human order with profound implications. Of course, this is not only found in the east, but is also the crux of the Kant’s and Hegel’s arguments philosophically.

So, this proposition is simply an observation that you can see for yourself.

A Human Being is not an idea, it is an experience subjectively, and an animated, even mysterious object objectively. This experience and object only ‘lives’ in a world of ideas.

I am ‘being’ in truth, and any idea about me ‘being’ is simply a construct of what being ‘is’. Since being is pure experience, beyond the rational and reasoning mind, we can never be said to be ‘anything’ and ideas are just information, pointers, signifiers, not the thing in and of itself. Ideas by their very nature are ‘false’ in relationship to the ‘true’ that they signify. Thus, my ‘experience’ writing this is my truth, and all of these words are necessarily ‘false’ in relationship to that truth.

Ideas about self, ego, are simply and naturally always false in relation to the pure truth of being. Gentle art that we use to communicate to others and share our personal truths about us and each other.

Conflict only becomes suffering and misery when we confuse or reverse the natural art (2) of the self as a science (1) of the self. The experience of ‘being’, to the rational and orderly mind, is simply a truth that is ‘mystery’, beyond reason, and the full experience of ‘being’ is the mind becoming suspended in all it believes to be true while it floats in ‘mystery’.

To experience pure being, the mind must embrace mystery and lose the true or false perception of reason or rationality. In the east, some perform practice and training for this specific purpose for years and years. You can also experience that rather quickly once you understand how to deconstruct your ideas into 0, 1, and 2.

Human beings are not in conflict. We do not need to ‘replace’ one another for one of us to be ‘right’ or adhere to a true idea. Human being performs a natural synergy like all aspects of nature. And like in nature, conflict is in service to ideas that serve best the species, and in human species, it is ideas that best serve not just the species, but equally the individual.

If you dislike OS 012, and decide to kill me, hurt me, or degrade my character to defeat the idea (which many have tried to do), then you have confused me as an idea, and it certainly wont refute or make any of the propositions false by my demise or emotional grunting, the ideas will spread no matter what happens to me. Likewise, any harm, be it physical, emotional, or political that is put unto any human being to make their ideas ‘false’, not true, in attempt to make their ideas unable to compete with ours, is an irrational error and simply will not work as planned or hoped, since it naturally contains false information that is believed to be true. Yet we must also note that this ‘irrational’ and utterly ‘stupid’ error is made at every stage of human social order, including academia, Hollywood, and unfortunately and to our demise, International Politics.

We are simply unconscious and unaware of the natural conflict of idea, and become so engaged in the drama that we naturally confuse each other with the ideas we have aligned ourselves with, and to ‘win’, or make our ideas ‘true’, we try to maim, kill, intimidate, or inflame others or force them in a ‘loss’. In extreme situations and conflict, this is warfare, in everyday conflict of idea, this is referred to as ‘ad hominem verbal attack’, which we often see as a dominant political tool of politicians running for office, trying to associate the opponent with something bad ‘words’, like ‘liberal’ or ‘crazy’, ‘wimp’ ‘flip-flopper’ to associate or make false in perception their ideas they are suggesting.

No matter how aware or wonderful we think we are, the conflict of idea is argued to be as powerful as sexual urges, we are driven towards it, and when misunderstood, restricted, or not in ‘harmony’, like the sexual urges, there will be only misery, confusion, suffering, and many other observations we can make about our world in the 21st century.

In a closed finite system, which is Planet Earth, Buckminster Fuller noted with precise observation that if ‘win lose’ problem solving is allowed to continue, then it will insure the eventual destruction of human species and human being. This is argued more later, but essentially we can say that this is true because each ‘solution’ that is created with a ‘win lose’ perception is only a ‘solution’ in illusion and word, and in action, it essentially just moves a problem over to someone else or another side, and then adds another problem on top of it. It does not solve problems in objective reality, it doubles them and copies them.

All ideas spread, even ideas that create more problems.

                                     Rule #6
All Problems are solved effectively when all sides win. (Synergy)

When all sides or ‘points of view’ are ‘winning’, they are simply receiving the collective output of all contributing. Mutual participation.

As a gaming dynamic, OS 012 continually holds this rational truth, formula, and ethic has the highest, most valued, most effective and dominant ideal to arrive at the most efficient solution on every level or plane where any ‘problem’ or ‘conflict’ may arise. Any solution that does not contain ‘all sides win’ is immediately discarded as ‘false’ and illusory, misleading.

All successful human interaction holds this principle as a noticeable truth.

A problem is a dilemma, a ‘conundrum’, a ‘minor’ or ‘major’ restriction that is before us that limits our intention or will in a way that confounds us momentarily.

The most efficient ‘solutions’ that produce the most ‘successful’ results contain this function. From evolution to human mating to the most effective of Asian martial arts (Aikido), Mathematical Game Theory (Neumann, Nash) architectural design (Fuller) this is the dominant and most effectively used ‘formula’ for success. We will address more of this later.

When all points of view can be said for themselves to be ‘winning’ or experiencing no ‘restrictions’ and attaining that which is valuable to them, all points of view create something, often beyond their perception, which can be likened to a form of energy, a ‘collective’ output of ‘all contributing’ that serves a function in relationship to other synergetic systems around them. In common language, we can call this ‘wholeness’ or ‘integrity’.

This we shall go into at another point, but for now, let’s focus on the very mathematical principle that ‘sums’ (pardon the pun) up this proscription, which is thus now defined as both a logical and rational formulation, as well as a prosaic, fanciful, and descriptive note. “All problems are solved effectively when all sides win” is a simple and practical application of ‘Non-Zero Sum’ gaming in Game Theory (mathematics) into human dialogue and the conflict of idea. With OS 012, even the most profoundly conflicting ideas can produce the most shocking bond between the two human beings whom adhere to them.
All ideas appear to be ‘spun’ or tagged by our perception, and since our perception can either produce true, false, or mystery, and since our perception is a result of our human nature, and since ‘all sides win’ is a function of that very same nature, we can then say for uttermost certainty that we can all win and benefit from the conflict of idea ‘naturally’, and instead of causing misery and suffering, we can use the conflict of idea to unleash human potential to her most highest strata.

And we can do this immediately, on the internet, but this is going to be discussed more in Part 3 of this book, the ‘Mystery of the Human Union’

The Natural Synergy of Perception, Dialogue, Words, and Ideas.

‘Synergy’ is a term that was coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, designer of The World Game and the Geodesic Dome to denote as subtle yet integral strength that is released in nature’s design. His ‘geodesic dome’, often called ‘Bucky Balls’, are the world’s strongest standing structures, even stronger than the pyramids of Egypt. As a matter of fact, the larger you make the dome, the stronger it gets. Bucky discovered this unique ‘formula’ of nature and applied it to design.

This same formula, OS 012 applies to perception and dialogue.

In the dialectic, we simply define synergy as ‘All sides contribute and all sides win the collective output of all contributing’. It is simple to see noting the designs above that this proposition is simply an ‘observation’ about it’s environment.

In terms of perception, a ‘side’ is equal to a ‘point of view’. So, what we do in the dialectic, through the process of asking the five basic root questions of the objective and rational mind, being; who, what, where, when, and how; is come to denote in our written word where the natural ‘synergy’ exists that is defined in the dialectic.

As a dialectic, OS 012 is true (functioning) in both subjective (individual or personal) and objective (collective) environments, it is both objectively true and her patterns, that of conflict and copying, that of true, false, and mystery, can be continued to be observed by others empirically, and can be experienced or observed as a subjective ‘giest’ which delivers your own unique personal ‘revelation’.

So, again, OS 012 is not metaphysics or philosophy, but you will naturally adopt it to your own philosophy in the natural conflict of idea. OS 012 as a dialectic will naturally help you refine your own ideas about self, other, and us, sometimes in profound ways that can even produce a ‘shock’ or a ‘scare’ as your old perception is trans lifted into a more expansive and clear state.

One idea can be true to one person whilst perceived as false to another as indeed most are. This can now be perfectly mapped, understood, and quantified. How we naturally relate to true false and mystery can identify how we all relate to each other.

How True, False, and Mystery relate to us and how we relate to true false and mystery.

                         The relativity of dialogue and perception.

What does ‘4 6 3 8 _A B K 2 4 _A L G M O R _3 Y X 24 89 _R P S T O V A L’ mean?

Is it a meaningless statement? Many logicians in the west would say that it is ‘meaningless’, discarding it without extracting any value. With the dialectic, we extract the value that it is ‘mystery’ until it’s true or false meaning can be rationally determined. When something is mystery, it would be dishonest to say that the mystery is ‘meaningless’ because we don’t know what the mystery is to be able to place such a value on it, indeed, the only value ‘unknown’ can contain is that it is ‘true’ that it is ‘mystery’. In western logic, often without acknowledging it, philosophers place a value of truth onto ‘meaninglessness’ which is an irrational thing to do, for ‘meaningless’ is simple ‘false’, not ‘true’, in objective reality.

We are naturally surrounded by ‘mystery’, and ‘mystery’ is what inspires us to want to ‘know’. By constantly identifying the mystery, we constantly invoke ‘wonder’ or ‘open minded-ness’.

We will go into detail later what ‘false’ signifies in the ‘true’ sense, but until then, we can only say for honesty’s sake that when we cannot distinguish between true, and false, then there is only one possible thing that can remain, ‘mystery’. Essentially, mystery is merely the signifier for that which ‘we do not know that we do not know’, or that which is currently beyond our perceptions of true and false. It appears when there is both ‘true’ and ‘false’ indistinguishable from each other.

For a simple and practical, non philosophical example. In Dec of 2001 through March 2003, the idea of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in Iraq was accepted as true in the majority of national perception, promoted as true, and shaped a course of events because it was perceived of as true. We can note how different history may have played out if it was simply accepted as obvious by all parties that ‘WMD’ were simply not true, nor false, but ‘mystery’. Clearly, Weapons of Mass Destruction was not in the set of ‘known unknowns’ that Donald Rumsfield waved before reporters. If political forces at the time were honest and admitted that it WMD were ‘mystery’ or ‘unknown’, respectively, then an entirely different series of events would have occurred. But mystery, as we will come to find later in the book, is the enemy of the politician, whose acceptance of mystery invokes certain defeat. Thus, in a continuing web of both self deception and deception to others, the political process fails us because the political process cannot honestly admit to mystery without accepting personal failure. We will cover the complete and utter failure of human political process, and the dialectic as the solution, at another point in time.

Now, ‘mystery’ only becomes important as a rational quantifier when the subjective experience and the objective standard of rational thinking are both working together in a ‘perceptional harmony’.

In other words, ‘mystery’ is only relevant when the perceiver is considered relevant in the equation. Since we can now see that ‘true and false’ are just simple human constructs, not really having existence outside of us and meaningless without human perception, then we can see that the perceiver is indeed quite important, essential, to how we uncover true or false.

For example,[ n<= => s] 1 is a mystery to me. I am not a mathematician, and even if I was, those terms have not yet been defined. I don’t know what the hell that means when I look at it. So, applying this particular process, I note that n= s1 is in ‘mystery’ , outside of my perception. Any idea I have about n = s 1 is not true, but naturally ‘false’.

However, it may be true inside of a mathematicians perspective, or it may become true to me once I learn the theorem.

So, in this sense, we may all disagree on what is true, or false, or mystery, however, we can all agree that there exists, in principle, that which is true, false and mystery in the first place. No matter what we believe or think, true, false, and mystery remains in every single human being’s perception.

We are essentially a Point of View.

Perception is our individual ‘point of view’. Let’s define this further. Let’s reference or map everything that can be viewed or perceived by a point of view simply as ‘environmental information’.

Now let’s divide also ‘environmental information’ into three basic sets, and then note how these three sets of environmental information relate to true, false, and mystery.

Set 1 contains all information which can be perceived outside of us. This is yours, and indeed ‘our’ external objective environment (1). It appears that we all share one external environment together. This sentence exists in this set. So does this book you are reading. So does this ‘word’ or piece of ‘text’ that I am self signifying.

In western rational thought, this is called the realm of the phenomenal, or world of observable events. This is to be distinguished from Kant’s particular meaning of ‘phenomenal’ which is more a reference not to set A, the exterior world, but to set B, ‘the interior world’ below. In the dialectic, we reference this as ‘objective environment’ which is identical to ‘objective realty’. This is the realm of the 1, the ‘true’ or ‘that which we agree to be ‘true’. In simple speak, Set A contains information that is in front of your eyes or that which you or me can see for ourselves and mutually agree upon.

Set 2 contains all information that signifies that which is internal, inside of us perceptionally. This is the environment of ‘experience’ as well as the world of ‘ideas’ and concepts. The subjective environment. Feelings. Tingles. Inspiration. Concepts. Images. We experience that which ‘appears’ outside of us (objective reality) but can only determine what is outside of us via a subjective process. Here philosopher Kant agrees. The world outside of us, that which we can agree is made of ‘observable events’ is defined in the phenomenal sense, but in essence, (the ‘ding an sich)’, the thing in and of itself that we perceive, is mystery and we can only come to understand it by looking at it and deconstructing it via experience and our ideas about it.

We only know what human nervous system informs us and the maps and images we make in our minds about it. In the dialectic, this is simply the realm of the ‘false’, and we all agree that the realm ‘outside of us’ is something that always appears ‘outside of us’ regardless if we can never tell for any certainty ‘where’ it is. The ‘fact’ is Set A contains all information that references ‘outside’ us, our one shared environment, and set B contains all information that signifies ‘inside of us’.(Please note immediately the relationship of the basic distinction of ‘one’ shared external environment to ‘the many’ subjective environments perceiving, feeling, and experiencing it. Note that the signifier ‘one to the many, and the many to the one’ although it may sound poetic and wishful for an Eastern or Noetic flare, is also simply just an observation regarding the dynamic of perception that we all engage in on a daily basis.)

Set O contains all information that is either indistinguishable as to either its nature of external/internal, or all information that is simply outside not of ‘us’, but outside of our ‘perception’. In simple speak, Set 0is information about what is ‘behind you’ or outside of your POV. It is information that we do not have either direct (subjective) or indirect (objective) visual access to. Set C contains information that is always away from your personal or our collective perception. This is the realm of perceptional mystery. We do not know for certain what something looks like unless we can look at it. Without perceiving it outside of us, we must consult our memory banks, our internal environment.

It is important to note that your Set 2 is my Set 0, and vice versa. This is a functioning dynamic in human interrelation that is often outside of common perception. Applying the dialectic brings this into common perception. Human beings are ‘mystery’. We are permanently in a state of mystery for each other perceptionally, and for this purpose, we can now also identify ‘mystery’ as a natural constant in our environment.

     Human Being is in a state of constant natural agreement.

Where there is agreement, there is participation. We cannot have participation in any form without agreement. Agreement is the foundation of human interactivity and perception. Agreement is foundational to human order and administration. The more agreement we have, the more we can fully participate. By default then, our external environment, objective reality, is the reality that we all agree on, naturally.

So, even to have conflict already presupposes a basic human agreement on the basic existence of ‘truth’ that is outside of our mundane perception. We may not be able to agree on what the conflict is, but we can agree we have ‘conflict’ to begin with. We may not all share the same idea that ‘God is true’, or ‘Prince was the greatest songwriter in the 20th Century’, ‘Angelina Jolie is the most beautiful and intelligent woman in the world’ or ‘George Bush is a buffoon’, however we all share a perceptional category for ‘true’ in and of itself. Indeed, our entire mind functions around what it is we call or can come to call ‘true’.

All ideas can only be true, or false, or mystery because our basic perceptional foundations are either true, or false, or mystery.

‘Mystery’ is a value, a ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ value, for the truth that we do not know. I know there are many logicians in the west who will despise or mock me for saying that, yet in over 2 1/2 years, no philosopher or logician, mathematician has even been able to argue rationally how ‘mystery’ can not be considered a truth value to basic human perception, and when confronted to explain their arguments rationally, they mysteriously disappear and they tend to ignore the argument further.

In the dialectic, we have three distinct values for truth encountered in idea or concept. All ideas are ‘eternally reducible’ to all three sets.

As both a rational and ‘creative’ formulation, we can define truth as that which has any form of existence, be it physical, conceptual, metaphysical, philosophical, or psychological. Anything that can be referenced can be said to have a form of existence and thus be ‘true to itself’. Whatever has appearance has truth relative to it’s appearance. For example, an illusion of an apple may not be true as an apple, but it is true as an illusion. It is a true illusion, the apple may not exist, but the illusion sure does.

This quality of existence is a natural measurement for truth. Let’s now distinguish the three basic sets of ‘truth’ in relationship to idea.

1 = ‘Pure’ or ‘essential’ truth. A= A. Fact. Can be verified and perceived by others, objective. Empirical.

2 = False truth. A= B. Fiction. Art. Metaphor. Deception. Can point to a truth, illusion a truth, or fake a truth, but it can never ‘be’ true, since it’s basic function is ‘not true’. So it only becomes ‘true’ when it is acknowledged as what it is, illusion, hence, a value for truth that is also false, a false truth. Since it ‘exists’ as false, it has a natural value for truth.

0 = Mysterious truth. AL = LA. It is impossible to determine the ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ of this equation. It’s ‘meaning’ is not determined. It is both true, and false, at once. Yet mystery is a value for truth since it is true that there is always in existence that which is outside of our perception, individually and collectively. What ever concept we have of this ‘truth’ is naturally ‘false’, since being outside of our perception, we can only ‘imagine’ what it is like. Imagination is in Set 2, false truth. Mystery is a permanent function of awareness, just as constant as anything else that is true in our environments. Thus, a value for mystery placed on that which is true, as well as a value for true is placed on that which is mystery.

When we can come to identify this natural pattern in our dialogue, we can come to find a perfect natural synergy of idea being exchanged between human being, even in tumultuous or violent conflict. There exists a pattern to how we exchange information with each other that exists outside of our basic perception. OS 012 helps us to distinguish this pattern into our awareness thus expanding our perception to include this natural process. When we come to find this pattern in our dialogue, we then can say that we are coming to find it in our perception. This natural process ‘expands’ our minds to embrace infinity.

So now, let us build our ‘perception’ and certainty table. We assign numbers 0, 1, and 2 to ideas and perception to understand how they relate to one another and how we naturally build maps using these three basic distinctions all the time. The argument suggests that since we can ‘build numbers’ using these building blocks of number (0, 1, and 2), then as all numbers can be distinguished via this simple process, we can also come to see how we build the perception of our environment using the same principles and distinctions. Not only can we observe how ‘we’ do it as individuals, mind you, but how our ‘opponents’ and even our ‘enemies’ (problematic others) do as well.

For mathematicians, (if your not a mathematician, please cover your eyes or delicately place tissue paper over this next paragraph) I understand that I should explain this number set in relationship to natural number as ‘dividing number sets into three categories: the null set, non null finite sets, and infinite sets, and that this number system is based on their respective cardinalities.’

In common speak, what we can say about the numbers 0, 1, and 2, we can say about all of our ideas. There is a recapitulating pattern to our perception and as such, it is immediately distinguishable in our ideas, then in our language, and thirdly in our environments.

The same set of distinctions that we use to ‘tell the difference’ between 0, 1, and 2, in the counting and ordering sense, is the same set of distinctions we can come to make about idea, and human being.

In common language, we can easily come to ‘see what each other means’ for certain when we apply the natural dialectic of 0, 1, and 2.

See for yourself.

The Perceptions tables of three sets of number and idea. What we can say about numbers in the counting and ordering sense, we can say about ideas.

0 = Mystery or mysterious idea. Perceptionally void of either true or either false. True and false indistinguishable. In the perceptional and dialectical sense, mystery is when ideas are perceived as being both ‘true and false’ at once. We cannot determine any rational value for them other than mystery. Mystery signifies, in this sense, 0; and in mathematics, (in natural, ordering and counting numbers), 0 has no successor. It immediately implies the absence of 1. It is not reducible to anything. It is only the additive number. You can add to it, but you can not subtract from it. There is no finite value to it, and thus ‘no value’ can be placed upon it. It is a true infinite. Or, 0 is to 1 and 2 in the counting and ordering sense what Mystery is to True and False.

Examples of mysterious ideas that we all can agree are mystery are ideas like ‘God’, ‘The Future’, and later I will introduce the argument, ‘Human Being’.

Philosophically in the Eastern Sense this can be called a thing that is ‘no-thing’ or 'Tao'. What ‘no-thing’ is inside of the dialectic is simply, rationally and honestly noted as ‘Mystery’. Mathematically, it can be defined as a ‘base element’ in the counting sense, devoid of a successor. It is neither like or similar to 1, nor any number that follows 1. There is only one number in the ordering and counting sense that holds this distinction, and that is 0.

1= True or objective and rational idea. A=A. A true idea is ‘true’ in language simply when we ‘can’ agree that it is true. What we can agree on that is true is that which we can agree on that we can distinguish. We agree that A = A because it appears to all of us equally that A is A. Simple. A = A because A appears as and is distinguished as A. We agree the word at the end of this sentence is the word this. You know it. I know it. The basic distinctions we all either share or ‘can share’ in common perception. This is the world of ‘the finite’. The first distinction we can make is always one, even though it may imply 2 (the observer included) by default. We come to distinguish this one thing from that one thing, and each thing that is counted or distinguished we also can assign or begin to count the number 1 at, which we do and have for thousands of years. The essence of 1 is 1. 1 is a simple distinction. One thing.

2= false or subjective and artistic idea. All numbers added to one is the field of numbers that signify some combination of 1. This is not that, but this can signify that. A statue of David is not really David. There is no such thing in objective reality as a ‘3’ other than symbol. ‘3’ is merely rational mathematical shorthand for 1 + 1 + 1 things in the ordering and counting sense. The essence of 3 is not ‘3’ but three ‘ones’. In objective reality, we have 1 +1 +1 distinguishable things, but in our minds, we have, for simplicity sake, one distinction of ‘3’.

In objective reality and conceptual infinite environment, all numbers are equally infinite. All numbers other than ‘1’ are ‘artistic and conceptual’ illusions that follow certain logical rules, yet they are conceptual objects that do not exist in objective reality none the less. On an infinite number line, there are an infinite number of ‘3’s’ just as much as ‘4’s.
This is all based on perception, and this is a very key component in understanding the play of perception. There is only ‘1’ true number, which is the number 1. There are in infinite number of ways to express 1 or any combination of 1, and this is symbolized by the first pure false number, ‘2’, the first ‘distinction in number after ‘1’.

These are the two basic distinctions of our perception, 1 and 2, true and false. We cannot properly perceive or become aware of this natural distinction in perception until we can perceive mystery, or that which is ‘both 1 and 2, at once’. Or, to put it another way, we must develop the ability to distinguish this, that, and then that which is ‘both this and that combined and indistinguishable’.

In the conflict of idea amongst human being, there can only be one true idea in the objective sense (1), and an almost infinite number of true ideas in the subjective sense (2).

There is no conflict of idea between subjective and objective, 1 and 2, true and false, there is no conflict between mystery (0) and truth (1) there is only conflict between what is perceived as 1, or true. There is no natural conflict between ideas that are objectively mystery and objectively true. There is no conflict between ideas that are objectively true and objectively false, there is only conflict between ideas that are perceived to be true with other ideas perceived to be true.

Thus, by coming to quantify our ideas, clearly and rationally into a perception table built upon honesty and the basic distinctions of 0, 1, and 2, we can come to eventually have perfect agreement when the laws of conflict and perception are allowed to ‘game ‘ without restriction according to their natural rules or laws that are defined in the dialectic.