The Symbolic Forms... of Culinary Arts (and the Science of Food!)

As a quick note, it is interesting to consider the application of the philosophy of symbolic forms to the art (and science) of food preparation.  Just as all symbolic forms take shape based on the structure of human perception and thought, the culinary forms take shape from the structure of our perceptions of taste, appearance, odor and texture.  This intuitive, non-rational side is enhanced by a rational analysis of the food preparation itself.  The rational element of the culinary forms is scientific in terms of its consideration of chemistry, technique, and empirical/experimental evidence.  Indeed, there are schools in Paris where strictly rigorous scientific studies are being carried out for the sake of better understanding the possibilities various foods and techniques can offer the world of culinary arts.  There are studies which aim toward general principles, and there are still other approaches that concern themselves with the most particular event of the final dish, and all that leads up to it.  Rules and principles regarding technique (methodology) in the culinary arts/sciences are instances of a generalizing approach to knowledge, as are the principles of taste theory.  However, the essence of being a true artist in the kitchen is to have the confidence and trust in oneself to be spontaneous.  To create something entirely unique, to be enjoyed only once.  In the very impermanence of this art lays its true perfection of form.

Web 2.0: The New History

   Many people who read this blog probably use Facebook, Twitter, or some other online network that uses the "web 2.0" model of user action and interaction.  Consider Facebook as a map to the willing actions of each user.  This is, in the end, the most intimate documentation of history ever used.  Now our history is not only offered to us through the examination of artifacts, records and accounts often controlled by the ruling few, but instead it is offered to us through digital artifacts, accounts of the momentary thoughts, interests, and actions of individual human beings.  Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter go about collecting, saving, and sharing data, effectively creating a library of the lives of every one of its members. 
    So now our future actions will be directed by a historical record not chosen by a ruling interest, but by each individual member who is willing to take part in the account.  We have a record that shows the specific interests and activities of millions of individual users.  Herein lays the greatest potential of such a technology: like no other historical medium, it gives each person the chance to write his or her self into the history books.  Not to mention the possibilities that data trend analysis yields to policy makers, marketing interests, and so on.
    When used properly, to its fullest potential, it provides the conduit for a person to effectively change history, as well.  Because it is an interactive system, one can influence the actions of others, as well as form social groups and push specific interests.  Organizations are now formed between people of all walks of life, and according to the interests of the individuals.  Dog lovers unite, as do supporters of a specific political or religious group.  So not only is Facebook a medium for the historical record, it is also a medium for influence and power.
   On a civic level, it is a  more democratic medium for finding out what citizens want than pre-Web 2.0 forms of data collection.  It could effectively give us the shape of democracy to come.  Not only is the Facebook model a good way of finding out the real opinions of the user-citizens, it is also a grounds for building social groups and a sense of community.  Already policy makers have begun to grasp the potential of Web 2.0: we see political leaders giving speeches online and even taking video-response interviews, we see facebook pages and twitters from the heads of state. Politicians are writing their own blogs, parties are building membership.

    Watch as this new form of interaction gradually permeates all of our activities.  We will move from Web 2.0 to Life 2.0.  What we do, think and say will be shared with the world more than ever.

On Being and Action - Part Four

    Imagine the implications of this.  It can be understood that all of existence follows a single plan.  This is, most generally, the way of the universe, or more simply and appropriately, THE WAY.
    The Way can account for powerful beings which give rise to certain configurations, based on a larger plan.  In other words, the overarching Way can even account for so-called gods, just as it can account for so-called human beings.  But it goes against the general principle of the Way to assume an author of the way.  This is because so long as there is an author determining existence according to a greater plan, there is a greater plan determining the author.  So if anything at all is to be brought away from this discourse, it is that an overall plan can be safely assumed, but any assumption of an overall planner rests on very thin ice, based on our experience of all that exists.
    Let us once again take note of our methodological rule: that all our knowing and our making-sense-of will be based on what we already know.  On a side note, this explains why the concept of a single god or creator is so appealing to human beings, because human experience itself is always determined by the willing of one, single human subject.  Naturally we project this onto all of being. 
    Let us consider the consequences that this conception, characterized by 'the Way', has for our conception of the free will of human beings.  We have already said that it is possible to have many separate affective entities which can change the configuration of existence at will.  We have also said that overall there is a general plan accounting for all of these entities.  What does this mean for free will?  It means that every choice that is ever made by any one entity is always already necessarily determined by the Way.  There is a plan that accounts for every single thing that you and I do.  And yet, we are still free to do what we choose to do!  It is just that whatever we DO end up choosing, is already planned out.  We cannot but make whichever choice we end up making.  This sort of conception strikes a middle ground between complete determinism and free will.

On Being and Action - Part Three

When I am discussing those big things of existence, like the universe, its origins, and the nature of the actions which are implicit in the unfolding of events, when I am discussing such topics, the key to my methodology is to consider the problems by relating them to more concrete things I can understand.  When I consider the creation of all being, for instance, I consider it in terms of the birth of a human being.  By this sort of metaphoric transference, I make sense of those concerns which lay beyond the scope of my understanding.  And I can only do so in relation to all that lays within this scope.  I must always use what I know in order to make sense of what I don't.
This rule, if we can call it that, is in fact the very essence of pedagogy, of learning.  All human beings gain knowledge by taking in the characteristics of new events and making sense of them by way of already known patterns and experiences.  In this way the affective force behind each human subject can be seen as a pattern-building force, a force which leads, generally speaking, from disorganization to organization.  Things are put in their place, given a design by which they take their order in relation to other things.
It can be seen that each human being has a will of its own and can choose to do things which no other person can prevent or control.  You are free to choose, even when you are not free in your actions.  This is a freedom no other human being can take away from you as long as you are living.  Because we can see that there are many human beings who all have their separate will to affect the way things are in existence, we also see that there are multiple determining entities, all with their own individual powers to configure the patterns of things in existence.  It is clear that in all that exists, there are separate entities with separate wills.  In the particularly human and even animal entities, we can see that each entity acts-upon, and does so according to a particular plan.  There are other things that happen according to other plans which are beyond the affect of one alone of these entities.  Some of these plans are family or clan wide, some society wide, others spanning across all of human being.   Even more which are not only beyond human beings but also beyond the realms of action of Earth, the solar system, the milky way galaxy, and so on. There is a myriad of forms.  Indeed, as far as we can see there are things and actions which lay beyond our affective scope.
If we are to follow the earlier stated methodological rule here, then the fact that there are many affective forces in the universe affecting its way of being, and not simply one force affecting all.  Generally speaking we must see that there are forces beyond us which are not determined by us and, following our methodological rule, these forces ought to be determined by some particular planner, or at least a plan.  We could imagine the entire motion of the unfolding universe as directed by a single entity.  Yet even as we see this, it stands to reason that if we are to admit one single affective entity that decides the direction of the universe, then we must admit others.  Which means that all which exists in our universe is not actually all that exists.  This much is necessarily assumed the moment one assumes the presence of a single planner.  If we can conceive of all that exists, then it must include all, and not exclude an entity such as a single planner.
However... if instead of assuming a single planner we assume simply a single plan, without a planner, could we finally account for some problems regarding the genesis or coming-to-be of all that exists?  Let us assume that all that is has a single overarching plan, which is not caused by a single planner.  This means that, while there are many planners within the plan (e.g., human beings), the genesis and course of existence is not itself based on a planner.  This turns classic theological explanations on their head: instead of ontogenesis (the genesis of being) accounted for on the basis of an initial existing force, rather we have an ontogenesis accounted for on the basis of an initial vacuum of force: a lack.  In the most general terms, we have something coming from nothing. 
Let us step back a moment and consider this with regards to the earlier discussion about positive, creative forces and negative, destructive forces.  Is what we have here, in this movement from nothing to something, a movement toward organization, or is it a movement toward disorganization?  Is this movement of all in existence a creative movement or a destructive movement?  The answer to this question lays within a consideration of another question: is there order in nothing?  Or is there disorder?  And another question: can order itself be nothing?  Let me put it another way: how can there be order or disorder in nothing?  This can only be possible if 'order' (and 'disorder') are accepted as no thing, non-entities, which is affective yet not present.

On Being and Action - Part Two

On a cosmological level, what would it mean for a constructive force to be ordered for the sake of a destructive force?  For this question to be answered, it is necessary for us to step back for a moment and consider the basic assumptions of the current discourse.  The first of such assumptions, which most philosophers and few laypersons would immediately recognize is a metaphysics of presence: the 'fact' or 'truth' of the existence of 'matter', of the 'universe', is assumed.  Second is the assumption that human thought has some access to the way in which all these things are: that is to say, it is assumed that human beings can properly know the way the universe is.  We must assume that the systems of knowledge by which we explain the "nature" of existence is accurate.  In order to come up with a theory such as the big bang and put any faith in it, we are required to assume that the universe is indeed something that we can make sense of, something that we can understand.  But there is at least one other assumption that overrides even these: by the very presence of our current discourse, we assume that some order of "human being" exists, that some movement toward the very ordering of words and concepts actually takes place in being. Not only that, but it bust also be assumed that this movement toward order that is inherent in the human activity of meaning-giving, in it's advanced form of discourse, is a movement that "we" ourselves control, and by the very fact that there are other wills that might object to this particular discourse, we must assume that there is more than one "will" that makes choices according to free will.  Discourse itself would not even take place if it weren't first assumed that there was first of all someone creating the discourse, and secondly others toward which the discourse is directed.  All of this indicates to us one general and useful idea: there are many (or, at least, more than one) wills directing the state of all existence. 

On Being and Action - Part One

In the following series of blogs I will be discussing all those big questions concerning the nature of the universe and its creation, along with the nature of free will and the possibility of the existence of god(s).  Open your mind and follow along.  If nothing else, this discourse will at least give you a chance to see the bigger picture.  Enjoy, and thanks for reading.

There are two opposing forces that govern every action that takes place in the universe.  On the one hand, there is a positive, creative force by which all things come into being and increase their order and involved relation to each other.  On the other hand there is a negative, destructive force which brings the current state of things to an end and generally decreases the orderly relation of all things to other things. 

That aspect which is commonly attributed to human being alone, i.e., free will, or the will to choose, at any point, the direction of ones actions, is in fact a law that holds for all things.  Free will is seen not only in the actions of human beings, but in the will of all events of existence.  Take for instance the movement we have recently been describing as the big bang.  This movement , as we would have it, is a movement from the extreme unity of a singular entity into the ever-widening universe.  This ever-widening is like the continual expanding of a balloon: as you blow the balloon larger and larger, the patterns on the surface of the balloon continually expand.  Things move apart, patterns get wider, and fragments disperse.  If we take the idea of entropy seriously, then this expansion implicitly involves a movement toward disorder.  Not only are the patterns of the universe expanding, they are in fact deteriorating.  Patterns of the way things once were are no longer recognizable patterns.  The links between those fragments of the original unity continue to decrease.

Such a trend of the activity of the universe should be considered as an example of a negative, destructive force.  And yet, just as I have explained that such a force is always coinciding with an opposing force of positive creation, it is reasonable to imagine that the movement which we describe with the big bang theory also has its opposing movement or force.  If the movement by which all the universe follows is one of entropy, then there must also be an opposite movement: a movement by which all things move from infinite fragmentation, infinite separation, towards unity and complete organization.  If there are clear patterns in the universe which tend by a law of entropy to decrease in their organization, then there must also be some sort of movement which increases organization and moves all fragments toward a singular unity.

The way I have been discussing these opposing trends is generally cosmological: it focuses on the 'big' things of existence.  But these trends can also be seen on the level of the tendencies of living beings, whatever 'living' means in particular. Even the phenomena of life and of death could be described as two instantiations of these two sides of all action.  However, can we not see the same two trends in human activity itself?  Look at those two sides to free will: if considered in the most general terms, the choice that is to be made at every moment is either a yes or a no.  Do it, or not do it?  Make it or not make it?  And so on.  Even in those cases where there are many options to choose from, one always chooses to either go or not go in which ever direction they choose. 

Take for instance the choice to either build something up or break something down.  Such is a very basic general movement observed in the actions of human beings.  One  might choose to build up systems of value by which one brings things together and increases the "orderliness" of the things around him, or one might choose activities which lead to a decrease of order: war is a very potent example of this, for it is inherently an action which moves to decrease the order of a particular set of things.  For example, the actions of war in a particular region tend to decrease the current order present in that place.  Yet, such an example gives us an opportunity to see a possible explanation of the wider relation between these two movements.  War is always a force of destruction directed by another force: that of order.  In war, the destruction of one entity or region is always directed by an urge to increase or create the order of another entity.  When a country invades its neighbor, it wreaks havoc with the intention of benefiting the order of the invading country.  If we take this example as a indicative of a wider tendency of the universe, then we can safely assume, at the least, that any action which tends toward destruction is directed by an opposing action of ordering or creation. 

It should be noted that the way we have been describing this so far is quite one-sided, for it assumes, if you will, that the chicken precedes the egg.  We cannot safely assume that the destructive is always ordered by the constructive.  We must also consider the possibility of the opposite: that the constructive, likewise, is a movement directed by the deconstructive.  Take again the example of war.  War is not simply a willing to decrease order.  Rather, it takes huge amounts of movements toward order in order to carry out the destructive actions of war.  Armies must be organized, bureaucracies must be established, even "rules of war" are often put in place to ensure that the very effort is held within the control of the acting entity.  Tactics are developed.  And what are war tactics if not a momentary organizing of "things" for the sake of the destruction of other "things"?  We must consider the macroscopic instance of this trend.