ICP Theory.com

Igniting An East-West Globalizing Dialogue


Leave a comment

Playing Fields

Inherent to communicative interaction is the normative assumption that all parties engaged have a vested stake in their ‘fair share’ of expression based on their fundamental valuation of life. Similarly, in a game of strategy, it is generally accepted as a given that all parties involved have a fair stake in their individual success. Again, the basis for this generalization can be boiled down to the most fundamental principal commonly shared by all living beings: life. Indeed, across all cultural barriers, the value placed on life is a normative shared commonality.

Normative is the operative word. When (religious) belief systems are involved with their own set of values, assumptions – all assumptions – are immediately jettisoned. This is not an extraordinary concept as the majority knows this. However, that majority also expects the valuation of life to be the exception of what is to be jettisoned.

What happens when they are wrong?

In other words, in a paradigm with two separate and distinct cultures with their own respective belief and value systems, the one assumption is they will share the valuation of life at the very least. The human condition is the sheer fabric upon which the foundation of human experiences rests. However, when one of the cultures does not value life, that fabric goes from sheer to nonexistent.

So how can the two cultures in this paradigm interact?

For that matter, how can they (peacefully) co-exist?

Is it even probable that the two can endeavor a collaborative engagement?

How do you create a playing field between two parties when one party has obliterated the field by its complete disregard for life?

Engage through a compassionate understanding of their systems with comprehensive due diligence. In other words, attain a comprehensively educated viewpoint through a thorough immersion into their systems. And do so with unwavering tenacity to a respectful adherence of their customs, mores, and respective systems.

Indeed, when life is no longer the foundation, the only way to proceed is through the commonality of phenomenological senses:

Ocular: observing customs, mores, actions, behaviors, decisions, and interactions of that culture.

Tactile: respecting social distance and maintaining those boundaries.

Auricular: resonating with the sounds, vibrations, and echoes of that culture.

Gustatory: neutralizing any bitterness, acerbity, and/or cloying behavior with humility and compassion.

Olfactory: closing the distance barrier with five (5) refreshing mints:

gratitude,

hope,

respect,

compassion, and

understanding.

In my post, “CEV” on 16 June 2014, I discuss the purpose of my book and the importance of developing a comprehensively educated viewpoint (CEV):

At the very beginning of my book – before the Table of Contents and Introduction – is a letter to the general public.

The primary purpose of the letter is threefold:

  1. Return the focus and purpose of communication to an expressively meaningful engagement amongst equals,
  2. Encourage everyone to jettison judgment and ego when engaged in communicative expression and interpretation, and
  3. Ignite the desire in everyone to develop a comprehensively educated viewpoint (CEV) towards meaningful dialogue respectful of cultural nuances.

The secondary purpose of the letter is also threefold:

  1. Suggest the Transcendent Era as a direct result of man’s e-mediation over classical limitations of time, space, and geography,
  2. Redefine the current e-reality and its key ramifications, and
  3. Prescribe the CEV as a methodology through which the individual acclimates to this new reality.

Ultimately, the framework of the book itself – divided between: a) a critical analysis and meditation on Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra against a fable-like setting; and b) a virtual roundtable dialogue through a collection of essays and poems – is designed to offer the individual a tangible means of developing and flourishing his own CEV in a practical way.  Although it is the first of four volumes, it should still evince a sufficiently thorough introduction to IPT, the CEV, and the worldview I push forward.  At the very least, it should inspire the reader to take agency and realize his highest creative potential.

The best way back to common ground is understanding qua CEV. Infinite Potentiality Theory would add that at the end of that road is ultimate freedom. May you take absolute joy in every step!

–JY

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Suffering vs Freedom

Suffering is generally defined as the act of undergoing, sustaining, or enduring loss or anything unpleasant – or the condition thereof – patiently or (un)willingly. In any discussion on suffering, it is important to distinguish it from pain. Although one can suffer from pain, one does not have to be in a state of pain to be suffering. Especially for the purpose of this post, I ask you to keep this distinction in mind.

There are two principal categories of suffering:

  • Self-imposed as a result of unattained, unfulfilled desire or aspiration. It usually has a material implication of (lost or lack of) ownership.
  • Endured from an outside source with or without our willingness.

Here is a remedy, courtesy of IPT:

With the inherent paradigm shift proposed by IPT from a phenomenological-metaphysical duality to an infinite creative potentiality-ultimate freedom collaboration, comes the shift from a self-centric mode of existence to an other-centric mode of co-existent sharing. In the former paradigm – caught in the fetters of the self – suffering is unrelentingly omnipresent as an inexorable accessory to existence. In the latter paradigm – liberated from the self – the individual becomes freedom.

As such, s/he actively seeks resolutions, remedies, and resources where they are needed.

As such, s/he actively seeks ways towards peaceful co-existence.

As such, s/he actively seeks ways towards effecting a meaningfully positive impact concentrically outwards from specific locus to the outside world.

If you really stop to give this serious consideration, you might just be amazed at the tremendous impact from such a subtle shift. But there’s more. At each instant you realize your creative potentiality, you immediately enter the latter paradigm. Just as you create every day, multiple times a day, you also shift between paradigms every day, multiple times a day.

Between suffering and freedom, reclaim your choice.

–JY


Leave a comment

Striving Achievement vs Living Achievement

To Become or To Be

To Attempt or To Act

To Strive or To Attain

It is not extraordinarily difficult to understand the difference between realizing your highest achievement as opposed to just thinking about it. Regardless, the completed distance between realizing and thinking is quite rarely traversed. It seems we are stuck in the thinking. What’s worse, the thinking is itself not fully executed. In other words, we haven’t even left the gate towards the realization because we are caught in the mire of the thoughts.

Here is an alternate way of thinking about this conundrum, by way of Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, and Lukàcs qua ideology vs praxis. This is a very rough overview of the dialectic and its resolution:

Through his discussion of philosophy and history qua the (historical) Spirit and phenomenology, Hegel places ideology at center stage. Feuerbach then came along to ‘turn Hegel on his head’ and place praxis above ideology. Taking a nod from Feuerbach, Marx calls for (revolutionary) praxis directed towards the proletariat-bourgeoisie class struggle. Seeing a middle ground, Lukàcs focused on the concrete totality, arguing for ideology as prerequisite before effective praxis.

Again, this is a very crude overview. However, the point is in Lukàcs qua totality. Perhaps the best way to disentangle from the mire of thoughts is to maintain focus on the totality of your proposed achievement. Accounting for the ‘worm’s eye view’ along with the ‘bird’s eye view’ for a comprehensive perspective enables your transcending attainment.

Cheers!

–JY


Leave a comment

Intentionality (Effective Power)

There is an effective power behind intentionality qua action as opposed to attempted action. When you really think about it, attempted action is a contradiction. If you are attempting, you are not acting. (You are miming.) If you are acting, you are not attempting. (You are doing.)

Increasingly today, individuals – who are not professional mimes – are gesticulating and far too much. It is as if they are living in a self-imposed invisible box of their own creation. Sadly, this is the great self-perpetrated irony (as if we are engaging in an ‘en-masse’ sabotage against ourselves):

In this hypermediated e-globalized world enabling the individual’s effective agency at the singular level, s/he has even more incentive empowerment to jettison all obstacles to success. However, instead of leveraging this agency, s/he is tenaciously holding onto the deleterious impediments nullifying that leverage. In other words, instead of being empowered to success, the individual is sabotaging himself at every turn.

There is no reason to perpetuate this irony any further.

Indeed, IPT calls you to make the conscious decision – today – to embrace your effective agency. Set forth the ripples concentrically outwards from your locus to the world and make a meaningfully positive impact.   Be empowered to your own success and inspire others through your example.

There is no better time than now.

–JY


Leave a comment

Distinctions

Judgment is generally defined as the forming of an opinion, usually from material evidence or any of the phenomenological senses used to form that opinion.  (For the purpose of this post, I am omitting the legal and the religious definitions.)  As opinions, judgments are neither right nor wrong, good nor bad.

It is important to note that judgments are separate and distinct from morality.  Similarly, a decree of judgment is not a decree of value.  Failing to distinguish these differences runs the judge into a high risk pretense of hypocrisy.

Indeed, the hypocrisy invalidates the opinion so formed.  In other words, judgments based on systems of morality and/or valuations are intrinsically invalid because by definition, judgments are opinions.  As such, their basis is the phenomenological evidence given to us by our senses – our highly subjective senses.  The phenomenological are separate and distinct from morality and from valuation.

Valuation is generally defined as the act of appraising the worth, quality, or excellence of something.  Because they are based on an appraisal/value system, they are – unlike judgments – not opinions.  However, like judgments, valuations are separate and distinct from morality.

The pivotal factor for a valuation is its appraisal/value system.  Without definition of the system, the valuation itself becomes negated ineffective and meaningless.  It becomes an empty statement until the system is so defined.  If the system is based on morality, the valuation so formed becomes invalid.  Again, the two are mutually exclusive.

Quite often, judgment – especially directed at another person’s character, work, action, behavior, or decision, etc. – is mistaken for a moral valuation of the individual himself.  The same can be said of valuations.  Especially in today’s hypermediated e-globalized climate, it is critically necessary to avoid miscommunications with an unwaveringly tenacious due diligence.

An imperative for such avoidance is in the separation between judgments and valuations of the action, object, behavior, etc. from the acting individual.  The key here is distinction between the subject qua the individual and the object qua his action, behavior, etc.  And key to this distinction is the extrication of all morality systems.

So now that the distinctions have been so identified, the questions become:

How do we maintain the distinctions?

How do we avoid miscommunication, especially when judgments/valuations are involved?

In the paradigm shift Infinite Potentiality Theory (IPT) proposes, the ultimate freedom of and from the self through realized creative potentiality mediates an alternate – direct and powerfully effective – avenue of the judgment/valuation avoidance.  Shifting from a self-centered reality to an other-centered reality immediately enables the individual to be so liberated from all fetters of the erstwhile reality.  When focused on an other-sensitivity and phenomenology, the individual seamlessly and effortlessly shifts away from pretense qua hypocrisy.  Instead, s/he is ennobled to the other and this ennoblement is beauteous indeed.

–JY

 


Leave a comment

Excessive Limitation or Vision of Extraordinary Scale?

Michelangelo’s statue of David and especially The Last Judgment, painted on the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling.

Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, Vitruvian Man, as well as his countless inventions and feats of creativity.

The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Lamb’s Empire State Building.

Smith’s Burj Khalifa.

The above barely scratches at the surface of outstanding individuals and equally outstanding objects of ocular proof to man’s creative potentiality.  Indeed, tremendous feats of extraordinary scale accompany each generation across time, space, geography, and cultures.  These accomplishments set precedents for the basis of world record-breaking achievements.

Between ‘genius’ and ‘madness’, is a world of infinite creative potentiality (ICP).  The difference is ICP is without (de)moralizing judgment.  Because of this difference, creativity is allowed to flourish and empower others to effective agency in a positively meaningful way.  Without this, is self-destruction and misjudgment, labeled ‘madness’.  (Cases is point: VanGogh, Gauguin, Pollock, Shelley, Woolf, Rachmaninoff, to name a few.)

In my last post “Normalcy vs. Judgment“, I discuss the judgment fallacy:

Unfortunately, embedded within the judgment of normalcy is a judgment of character. However, the judge’s definition of the judged’s character is an exhibition of his own character (and lack thereof).  This is the subtlety betrayed in the judgment.

Similarly, in the judgment of normalcy is a betrayal of skewed indifference towards those very categories of ‘normal’ defined and utilized.  This is the fallacy of normative judgment.  Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order to counteract this fallacy.

For all the creative potentiality that exists in infinite supply, man has an inherent obligation to set aside normative judgments.  This is especially so within the creative sphere.  Indeed, the fallacy of normative judgment  has imbedded within it a toxin.  It is the toxin of limitations.

Limitations on creativity can be destructive.  Excessive limitations on creativity are lethal.  Creativity is the essence of existence as long as life so defined is animate.  Destroying creativity sabotages existence.

The creative world carries the obligation of free expression.  It is the conscience, pulse, commentary, self-reflection, and editorial of that moment in time within that particular social climate.  It is not affiliated with any particular politic as it is its own party: The Artist.

Before jumping into any judgment – hasty or premeditated – remember well this triad and you will not be so further inclined:

1) the fallacy of normative judgment,

2) the creative obligation, and

3) The Artist Party.

–JY


Leave a comment

Normalcy vs. Judgment

What is your normal?

How do you define your normal?

How do you judge your normal?

It seems there is a common tendency for individuals to pass judgment on others with respect to what they themselves deem ‘normal’.

And yet, whose definition are they using? 

Within which social structure are they basing this definition? 

What category of recognition are they using in the definition, if any?

Unfortunately, embedded within the judgment of normalcy is a judgment of character. However, the judge’s definition of the judged’s character is an exhibition of his own character (and lack thereof).  This is the subtlety betrayed in the judgment.

Similarly, in the judgment of normalcy is a betrayal of skewed indifference towards those very categories of ‘normal’ defined and utilized.  This is the fallacy of normative judgment.  Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order to counteract this fallacy.

How about shift towards compelling basic human decency?

How about a conscious daily act of understanding?

Why not promote and instill others with (selfless) kindness towards our fellow man?

If these could be our initial steps towards normative definitions and judgments of ‘normal’, we would be one step closer to a grand resolution of the human condition…

–JY