Surviving the Information Age: OS012

by **fujacko** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:11 pm

Dear RI board, I just came upon this blog and forum. There are lots of smart people here, but also many confused people who apparently need help staying mentally grounded. This place is flooded with outlandish conspiracy theories, and many of your lives may become much more manageable by 'downloading' this mental tool. OS012 is a Master Meme (an idea that cannot be proven false, that is true in all contexts). It is a tool that allows for greater understanding of the idea of truth, and guarantees win-win solutions for all scenarios, all the time. It is essential for surviving the information overload that confronts us in today's world. OS012 is a ternary dialectic that found its origins in online discussion during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Parties involved figured out some basic rules about ideas, namely the fact that ideas are not people. Another fact about ideas is that they are always in conflict when competing for the status of 'truth'. However, since ideas are not people, people are not in conflict. Finally, the nature of an idea is to multiply/spread. That is the background info you need to understand before you can effectively work with OS012. The OS (Operating System, or Objective Subjective) is a dialectical framework; it allows you to parse information into categories of True, False, and Mystery. The simple dichotomy between merely True and False is flawed; Mystery is always a function. The OS defines: Mystery: unknown truth (0) True: objective truth (1) False: subjective truth (2) Objective truth is an idea we can all agree upon, one for which the five fundamental questions (who, when, what, where, how) can be answered. The question of 'why', however, lies in the realm of Subjective truth. Furthermore, Subjective truth may be any idea that holds true to the individual, but may not align with objective truth. Finally, ideas which do not reside in the realm of objective or subjective truth are Mysterious; it is that which we do not know to be true or false, or that which is both true and false. True = 1 - objective - science - logic (e.g. Universe exists) False= 2 - subjective - art - emotion (e.g. the meaning of Universe is [insert story]) Mystery = 0 - (e.g. the actual meaning of Universe) Again, the term False does not signify error; it refers to 'false truth', my or your point of view.. Just as the term True does not signify absolute truth, but objective truth; our shared point of view. Just as the term Mystery does not signify 'the infinitely unknown', but that which is not distinguishible as true or false in this place and time; ideas which lie beyond our current understanding of truth. Learning to parse information through OS012 allows for a supremely rational point of view. Furthermore, it guarantees that you will NEVER lose an argument. OS012 is an all-sides-win tool for conflict resolution and information management. It is disprovable; I challenge ANYONE here to find fault in the OS. For a full download, go here: <a href="http://www.highintelligence.com/OS%20012%20basic.html">www.highintelligence.com/...basic.html</a> -fujacko

by **fujacko** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:43 pm

Judging by the lack of responses, I conclude this board is already familiar with OS012. Or maybe it was instantly understood and nobody feels the need for further explanation. Or maybe a tragic mistake was made and my post was seen as spam. Or maybe y'all just don't get it. C'mon, I'm here to help!

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:26 pm

OS012 is a Master Meme (an idea that cannot be proven false, that is true in all contexts). ... ... Parties involved figured out some basic rules about ideas, namely the fact that ideas are not people. Another fact about ideas is that they are always in conflict when competing for the status of 'truth'. However, since ideas are not people, people are not in conflict. ... ... maybe y'all just don't get it. Yup. First we're told it's "an idea that cannot be proven false, that is true in all contexts", then we're treated to a patently invalid inference of the form 1) As are not Bs 2) As are Cs therefore 3) Bs are not C I suppose the geniuses behind this irrefutable insight think Norwegians are not people, on the grounds that (1) Italians are not Norwegian, and (2) Italians are people. Well, hats off gentleman ... meet the new Aristotle!

by **professorpan** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:30 pm

fujacko, I don't see anything radically new or revolutionary in OS012 -- it seems like good old common sense logic dressed up in memetic language. And when you drop into a board and say some of the participants are "confused people who apparently need help staying mentally grounded," and offer your supposed cure for their malady, it comes across as presumptuous and condescending. Maybe that's why you didn't get any bites on your fishhook. Maybe no one wants your didactic "help."

by **fujacko** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>First we're told it's "an idea that cannot be proven false, that is true in all contexts", then we're treated to a patently invalid inference of the form 1) As are not Bs 2) As are Cs therefore 3) Bs are not C<hr></blockquote> I assume the above scheme delineates A=ideas, B=peoples, and C=state of conflict, and implies logical deduction. That, as you rightly conclude, is invalid reference. However, your reference is invalid as well: the supporting statements I listed seem to have been interpreted as an attempt to explain a critical element of OS012, as opposed to the mere background material that it is. My apologies if I wasn't clear about that. See, the crux of my message here is that all ideas are either (1)True, (2)False, or (0)Mystery, and when you actively distinguish between these for any or all ideas, you're guaranteed to end up wiser. OS012, coupled with a spirit of ruthless honesty, will ensure 100% success for the user in respect to gaining an understanding of knowledge, and what to do with it. By applying the system to all ideas in discussion, or all beliefs in our mind, or all issues in a conflict, the most rational position will be acquired. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, hats off gentleman ... meet the new Aristotle!<hr></blockquote> To clarify, I am not a creator of OS012, just an avid user and supporter. In fact, the ability to think this way is present in all, dormant in most, awakened in some. It is sexily Socratic, ridiculously Randian, and hilariously Hegelectic. OS012 allows one to recognize the natural synergy of nature, and implement it on the mental scale.

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:58 pm

I assume the above scheme delineates A=ideas, B=peoples, and C=state of conflict, and implies logical deduction. That, as you rightly conclude, is invalid reference. However, your reference is invalid By 'reference' you seem to mean 'inference'. No invalid inference on my part. Like I said, we were treated to a patently invalid inference; don't expect it to inspire confidence in a post that announces an infallible system. the crux of my message here is that all ideas are either (1)True, (2)False, or (0)Mystery, and when you actively distinguish between these for any or all ideas, you're guaranteed to end up wiser.  You might consider what you intend by 'ideas' here. Strictly speaking, propositions, not 'ideas', are considered as having truth-value (true or false), unless 'idea' is being used in some unusual sense -- a misleading practice. The idea of a horse -- unlike, e.g., the proposition that horses are mammals -- is neither true nor false. And 'Mystery', when contrasted with truth-value, is indeed a mystery, as it appears to conflate two quite different notions: having unknown truth-value and having no truth-value. The truth-value of the proposition that every even number is the sum of two primes is not known, because to date no one has been able to prove or refute it; that's no reason to think the proposition is neither true nor false. Perhaps you can try to explain what, if anything, is new in 'OS012'. Aside from the name and a few conspicuous obfuscations, it sure looks like the same old same old. (Nothing wrong with the same old same old as far as that goes, but what's the point of pouring old wine into new bottles, especiallly when little care is taken to avoid spillage?)

by **fujacko** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:28 pm

Hi prof, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't see anything radically new or revolutionary in OS012 -- it seems like good old common sense logic dressed up in memetic language. <hr></blockquote> Radically new it isn't; revolutionary it should be. Common sense is a fairly misunderstood concept, methinks. Most people think they have it, yet they cannot put their finger on what exactly it is. It's not objectivism. It's not mysticism. What's your definition? About OS012 and 'memetic language'; memetics tells us about the behavior of ideas, but not how to parse them into True, False, and Mystery. Even with a thorough understanding of memetics one is still hampered by beliefs, expectations, assumptions, opinions, hunches, suspicions, feelings, prejudices, i.e. subjective truth (2) often gets confused for fact, agreement, or objective truth (1). Often the actual truth of the idea is ambiguous or unknown (0). Nevertheless, people often end up irrationally defending an idea because they are attached to it, only to be destroyed by the King idea. When ideas are confused for people, 'common sense' usually goes flying out the window. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>when you drop into a board and say some of the participants are "confused people who apparently need help staying mentally grounded"...<hr></blockquote> Firstly, I make absolutely no specific claims as to who here would fit such a description. It was merely a general impression I gathered from poring over some of the stranger beliefs held by various visitors here. I see a lot of subjectivity being mistaken for objectivity, or confusion between fiction and fact. Of course, we all 'suffer' from irrationality from time to time; it's kind of a side-effect of being human. Especially in the 21st century. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>...and offer your supposed cure for their malady...<hr></blockquote> I sincerely believe that OS012, as a simple and natural system for understanding, is wholly unbeatable. If irrationality is what ails you, OS012 is the bestest cure on the market to-day! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>...it comes across as presumptuous and condescending.<hr></blockquote> If by 'it' you mean my ideas, you are anthropomorphizing. Let the ideas speak for themselves. Then again, if by 'it' you mean me... Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> -fuj

by **professorpan** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:54 pm

>>If by 'it' you mean my ideas, you are anthropomorphizing. Let the ideas speak for themselves. Then again, if by 'it' you mean me... Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.<< Yes, I mean you. I'm not calling names, just calling attention to your approach to promoting your esteemed OS. Sorry, I don't see anything in this system to be evangelical about. That doesn't mean it the system won't be valuable for some people. But your approach immediately gave me -- and probably a lot of others -- the same feeling we get when a Scientologist strolls up with his or her e-meter. There are ways to show enthusiasm that aren't off-putting.

by **fujacko** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:06 pm

hey wolf, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>By 'reference' you seem to mean 'inference'. <hr></blockquote> Yeah, I had my doubts there. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No invalid inference on my part.<hr></blockquote> Well, something definitely did go wrong. I said 'ideas are in conflict when competing for the status of truth', and 'ideas are not people'. Normally, one would infer from that: 'people are not in conflict when competing for the status of truth'. Outside of that lofty pursuit, however, there are other ways for humans to be in conflict. I thought that would be common sense. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Strictly speaking, propositions, not 'ideas', are considered as having truth-value (true or false)<hr></blockquote> This is a common mistake amongst skeptics, to confuse OS012 for a kind of truth-value system. I noted earlier that the labels True and False should not be confused with Logical values of 'correct' and 'erroneous'. Applying your example to OS012: the idea 'horse' exists as True (pointing to the objective existence of said creature). The idea 'horse' exists as False (pointing to the subjective experience of the creature). The idea 'horse' exists as a Mysterious idea (the actual creature, the absolute horse, das ding an sich). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Perhaps you can try to explain what, if anything, is new in 'OS012'.<hr></blockquote> If you can point me to an earlier 'version', please do. Ever heard of the saying 'the medium is the message'? -fuj

by **fujacko** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:23 pm

prof, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not calling names, just calling attention to your approach to promoting your esteemed OS. <hr></blockquote> Understood. But of course, that's only your interpretation. There may have been someone out there thinking 'yes fujacko, I am confused, and sure could use a metaphysical lifejacket right about now'. My intentions are pure. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>your approach immediately gave me -- and probably a lot of others -- the same feeling we get when a Scientologist strolls up with his or her e-meter<hr></blockquote> Scientology is 99% fiction (and 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot), while OS012 is 100% fact. But you're fully entitled to your feelings; I just hope they won't detract from your ability to judge the validity of my ideas. -fuj

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:45 pm

I said 'ideas are in conflict when competing for the status of truth', and 'ideas are not people'. Normally, one would infer from that: 'people are not in conflict when competing for the status of truth'. Not if one is rational. It's still the same, fallacious inference I diagnosed above. Here's another example, precisely the same in form: Dime store shoplifters are criminals; dime store shoplifters are not Bushies; therefore, Bushies are not criminals. The form of inference is invalid; thus, all such inferences will be fallacious, irrespective of the content of the premises. Had the conclusion been true (as sometimes happens in an invalid inference), it's truth would have been accidental relative to how it was reached. If you can point me to an earlier 'version', please do. I can see now that benefit of doubt was misplaced. There's little here apart from neologism, conflation, and fluff, and for that, blame shouldn't be laid at the door of any traditional school of method. To anyone who hasn't done so yet, I'd strongly recommend studying a good elementary logic text, such as Copi, Mates, Lemmon, etc. -- a valuable investment of time, and helpful in sifting the chaff from the wheat.

by **fujacko** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:46 am

wolfi, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's still the same, fallacious inference I diagnosed above. <hr></blockquote> You're the one that interpreted it as an inference. For the same money I could have presented the idea like this: "when attempting to arrive at the truth, human beings create conflict between their ideas. the conflict is not between people themselves, because people are not their ideas." When we over-identify ourselves with an idea the conflict will probably spread to the world of personal attacks, verbal and/or physical. Then we are in conflict. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Had the conclusion been true...<hr></blockquote> Please show me, don't just tell me. Where is the error in suggesting that this discussion we're having is a conflict of idea, and not a conflict between you and me? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can see now that benefit of doubt was misplaced. There's little here apart from neologism, conflation, and fluff, and for that, blame shouldn't be laid at the door of any traditional school of method. <hr></blockquote> Is this an evasion of the question? I can see you putting your labels on OS012, but no true analogies come to mind, do they? Nor can you find any fault in the system; please bring it on if you can. I already listed some influences of OS012 (Socratic method, Hegelian dialectic, Randian objectivism, Fullerian synergetics). OS012 is an amalgamation, presented in a novel and coherent format. Again, if you know about any earlier versions please show me and don't just tell me what you think of it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'd strongly recommend studying a good elementary logic text<hr></blockquote> I'd strongly recommend rereading my posts, where I emphasize that OS012 is not a system of logic. Why keep pulling that card if it doesn't apply? -fuj

by **wolf pauli** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:33 am

You're the one that interpreted it as an inference. As did you when you spoke of what "one would infer from that", and proceeded (not once but twice) to make the fallacious inference; you even called it the inference one would "normally" make. Well, you were right to call it an inference, but wrong to make it, and wrong to think people "normally" would. For the most part, people exhibit a reasonable degree of natural logical acumen; they make some howlers, but by and large manage to avoid them. Everyone can benefit from studying logic, some more so than others. See my last remark below. Where is the error in suggesting that this discussion we're having is a conflict of idea, and not a conflict between you and me? Your conclusion was a platitude; I didn't say it was false. Like any platitude, it's simply not worth discussing, so I didn't discuss it. Instead, I focused on how you arrived at it, viz. by a fallacious inference that demonstrates a notable lack of logical acumen, which was duly noted. (FYI, when I said "Had the conclusion been true ...", I was referring to "Bushies are not criminals" -- the example under discussion at that point.) I can see you putting your labels on OS012, but no true analogies come to mind, do they? Here's ones: it's like watching that footage of the Hindenburg ... O, the humanity! When I spoke of "neologism, conflation, and fluff", on the other hand, no analogy was intended. ... I emphasize that OS012 is not a system of logic. Why keep pulling that card if it doesn't apply? As my wording suggested, the advice to study an elementary logic text wasn't limited to you, but in your case I particularly recommend it. This has nothing to do with "OS012" being a "system of logic" -- we agree that it isn't -- and everything to do with the fact that you reason poorly. The advice was honestly intended; I've taught many students who've benefited from it, as would you.

by **fujacko** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:16 am

wolf, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As did you when you spoke of what "one would infer from that"<hr></blockquote> Nice rhetoric, trickster! Again, there is no 'inference' other than the hypothetical one I offered to appease your semantic nitpickery. My only point was that if you read my original statement as an observation of relative truth, instead of as a rule derived from logical inference, you'll see what I'm getting at. Here, once more, is the core of that concept: in any discussion where ideas compete for the status of 'truth', the participants themselves are not in conflict as long personal attachment to ideas is avoided And that was my only point. For you it may represent a platitude, but most people seem to fail to consider the consequence of such a realization: that there is absolutely no need to invest emotionally in an idea. Either your idea survives as the dominant meme, or it is destroyed and replaced by a stronger (truer) meme. You can't lose. Of course, that is all just background information; the meat of OS012 is the ternary nature of idea (not true/false, but true/false/mystery). Binary reasonng is too 20th century, and necessarily creates win-lose scenarios. But non-zero-sum dialectic is the win-win game of the future. All sides contribute. All sides win. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here's ones: it's like watching that footage of the Hindenburg<hr></blockquote> That is an artistic expression of your subjective interpretation of OS012, as I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps I should have used the term 'analogue' instead, since you suggested that OS012 is a rehashed version of something else. Of what, wolfi? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This has nothing to do with "OS012" being a "system of logic" -- we agree that it isn't -- and everything to do with the fact that you reason poorly. <hr></blockquote> You are equating logic=reason, which is one of the paradigms I'm trying to replace here. Logic is an inadequate guide for understanding the world, just as emotion is, and just as mysticism is. OS012 gives you the POV (point of view) of POVs. Hmmm... so far I've seen ad hominem, straw man, false analogy... any real critique of OS012, or what it claims to do? Do you see the superiority of ternary over binary thinking yet? Have you tried it? 1: True (logic, objective truth) 2: False (feelings, subjective truth) 0: Mystery (unknown/unverifiable, mysterious truth) -fuj

by **mercator** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:37 pm

He's right, fujacko, there are problems with your reasoning. You should straighten that out before trying anything more ambitious. It's true that logic isn't everytihing, but keep in mind that without it, reasoning is nothing. Good luck, and peace, merc

Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

OS01234

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: OS01234

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Re: Surviving the Information Age: OS012

Who is online