Collective math excercise #1
23 Feb 2011 Leave a Comment
in Humanity Tags: all, culture, family, future, Life, News, philosophy, psychology, random, society, writing
There is a particular equation in some math that I’m working on that I’m kind of stuck on. It occurred to me to share it and gratefully accept any input on the topic.
The equation, if translated to a sentence, would read something like this:
Can a person resign their free will or is resigning to one’s free will a contradiction?
The contradiction would be that it is mathematically paradoxical to argue that one can will ones self to not have will. For the sake of this math, let’s introduce the variable of apathy as one affecting everyone’s will, so that we don’t have to deal with those messy paradoxes. Apathy is a fit candidate for a catalyst leading to the individual resignation of will (or whatever name we wish to give it.) Please note that there is a distinction here when it comes to apathy as a cause and apathy as a result of a process. There are many arguments forming among those who would debate and discuss the issue that apathy is the result of resigning one’s individual will, and it very well may be. It might also be a human dynamic factor which exists exclusive of the process of individual will which affects humans in the same way a virus affects another organism. They may both be correct, in fact neither may be correct; it’s like trying to debate the color of a quark; it’s pretty speculative. Nonetheless, the apathy that we have to deal with is very real, regardless of where we choose to classify in our dictionaries.
The aforementioned equation is part of a formula which is attempting to contemplate the following possibility:
Theory: Upon making the observation that huge numbers of people are, in essence “resigning” to their will by participating in a massive state of apathy which has become an epidemic of global proportions and that this observable phenomenon has created an apparent “blind” spot in human judgment with regards to the outcome of this choice, (this being the only plausible explanation for the utter and total lack of action in light of our rapidly accelerating collision with our own catastrophic redefinition), and given the fact that this catastrophic event is imminent (<10 years or much sooner): Does that make solving the conditions which created the apathetic environment that started this process an imposition? This is important because, simply put, impositions are not allowed – we are dealing with the effects of the imposition of human will on other humans every day.
When a person stops caring, are they resigning their free will? Does that resignation simply eliminate that person’s free will from the collective of free wills of humans, or can an individual’s “will” (relating it to a physical thing) be “transferred” to any other person who cares enough to assimilate the responsibility?
In other words: When does helping someone who won’t help themselves with even the basics of human existence END and forcing someone to accept help begin?
The “quick-and-dirty” solution to this math is that the demarcation point between one and the other should be whatever we collectively decide it should be. I suspect that this may also be the correct result yielded by this math, but if it is: then why haven’t we established this point yet? (That was a loaded question.)
We have avoided the collective analysis of this equation for a long time now; perhaps this would be a good time to begin? It doesn’t make much sense to survive the result of our own irresponsibility by committing another one, does it?
I kept the word count low on this post because I was worried about being too long. If anyone would like more details on the math, please just let me know; I’ll be glad to share it! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist! I have no shame!)
We can do better!
