dimensionality and the self
more gaita asturiana
i’m trying to wrap up the more boring topics on the basis for my arguments. but for now, i want to discuss one of the consequences of seeing our interactions as dimensional.
recently i began explaining how we could see minds in multiple dimensions at once. one of the undiscussed topics of this dimensionality is that we will end up with different dimensions acting independently from each other at times. this is a way of seeing individuals contextually, not wholly, and contrasts with the accepted idea that individuals have a “personality” that is consistent. if individuals instead, are multidimensional and context-defined (i.e., who they are is defined by where they are in spacetime), this implies that the inner self is not so much an entity, but an emergent quality of a mix of the past experiences and the present context. since the present context has a tendency to activate only certain dimensions of the self, the inner self must, therefore, be contextual too. let’s see an example.
let’s say you are, a folk music lover and a left wing activist. let’s say, too, that you are playing with someone else who is a folk music lover, but a right wing activist. if the context wasn’t important and the self was consistent, there would be no possible interaction between the two individuals due to incompatibility. the whole self couldn’t fragment itself to accommodate the conflicting ideologies. usually, if one believes that selves are wholes, one could answer that the two would discuss until they harmonize their opinions into one that is mutually acceptable (even if it is agree to disagree). what i describe as dimensionality is a different idea, in my opinion simpler. depending on the context in which the individuals are, their dimensions will remain dormant or will be activated. for example, in a rehearsal or a concert, only the folk music dimension will excite the folk musician inner self of each individual. these contextual individuals are perfectly compatible and can lead a normal musical life together. if their political dimension is never excited by their surroundings they might even never discover that they have conflicting political opinions. this means that a neo nazi and a black panther can be friends, in fact, they can even be in the same band if they never happen to encounter a context that reveals their inner political selves.
this example is so common it seems almost banal. we all do this in our lives. our employers don’t know about our drinking habits, our drink buddies don’t know about our nerdy asian porcelain collection, etc. but even though we take this dimensionality for granted, we still believe in the fiction of a whole self that is consistent. it is important to understand that multidimensionality has many issues that we reject, even though they are the same process as our own behavior towards groups we are part of. for example, it is not uncommon for great dictatorships and their rulers to be great promoters of art and culture. many times they might even have great musicians in their high ranks. this is, in my opinion, because dimensions act mostly independently from one another because there is no self to provide consistency. there are contextual selves that are defined by the situation. so we could fall in love with the interpretations of the slayer general and be horrified by its killings.
this is also one of my main criticisms of the new wave of treating science as some kind of final answer to moral issues. science has been responsible for most of the slaying in the current and past century. great revered thinkers have also been many times great slaying machine designers (see Leonardo da Vinci or Einstein). what this signals is that science, like religion are independent dimensions, and that the slaying of man by man is a dimension that exists beyond them, as a cruder, stronger dimension that overrides all others.
to formalize this further and conclude, one cannot argue against an effect of a dimension A with calls to action against dimensions B and C if A is independent (if you like geometry, something like perpendicular) to both of them. this is why even though i do not believe in god (though i believe god exists through the hands of those that believe in it), i cannot join the ranks of most anti-religion activists, since usually the alternative provided is, as religion, independent (in a dimensional sense) of the issues discussed (usually authoritarianism, violence and so on).
dimensionality analysis is a way of dissecting arguments, allowing us to separate real causes (e.g., the urge to impose our view on others) from fictional causes that overlap it but end up being independent of it (e.g., doing it because god told us to or because we believe it will advance science greatly). in fact, it is probably more scientific to seek the real causes of an effect, and seeking the real active dimension of something is more scientific, even if it demonstrates that science itself has little to offer in this matter.
this type of analysis will be done further on and serves as a basis to most arguments i make. i hope this helps clarify it. by now we are ankle deep in human nature, and we’ll continue to dive deeper. notice that until now all assumptions have been kept clear. that is merely to provide solidity and to make sure my opinions are understood to the extent they have been thought, and not just something blurted out.