ahuactl

[ahuactl]

desiring Desire

there’s this thing right wherein it is evident that desire itself actualizes itself by the act of desiring desire. this whereby the projection of desire to desire exists must necessarily be desire itself. i feel like something is really really crazy about like desire qs a concept and as an object because it’s this thing that is self-sufficient and can somehow purport its own existence. it’s like it has its own driving force like an energy that really just shows up and knocks you over and proclaims it existence.

the desiring (per se) must also necessitate the existence of an object: must it be desire itself or the desired. and i guess it just becomes this thing of itself that like it’s so hard to explain because it’s such a Thing that exists stubbornly. it’s this irrational being or like a force like an entity i guess. -

it acts on itself by if you then desire consciously, it feeds it more and more.

also you might also be desiring desire if not consciously through an object because it really is that powerful and insane in such a way that in the which you might either desire to be desired, desire to experience being desired (as an object of desire), you desire to desire (as a desiree), you desire Desire (as a self-object of desire).

i desire Desire. i desire desiring. i desire to be desired. i desire eros; i desire connection, i desire love as an actualization of desire, i yearn, i long.-

[ahuactl]

on mathematical models

the question “is math invented or discovered?” remains to be the most contentious questions in mathematics.

a significant portion of people including mathematicians believe that mathematics holds objective truth insofar as their models, theorems and equations tell the truth about reality in which the Subject: their proposition exists independently of them. this position is familiar among those in the Platonist or Realist traditions of mathematics. common knowledge states that any proposition such as  P: 1 + 1  = 2  is true in which ever universe it is stated in such that its truth is not constructed upon the confines of our society and more strongly, not in our minds or cognitions.

i will present my argument here on why i disagree with this view. first, propositions like P: 1 + 1  = 2 are certainly not true in every construction of a mathematical system. for example, in boolean algebra and nonstandard number systems. even non-Platonist mathematicians would quickly disagree with this as they would claim that the Platonist view holds that the truth of a proposition exists not solely but with the pair (P, S) whereas P is the proposition and S is the system in which it is considered to be in. on such note, this leads me to my next argument.

from the development of set theory in the 19th century, it was discovered by mathematicians that mathematics as a field was built on shaky logical foundations (re: Russel’s Paradox). this thus necessitated the construction of a new structure which must possess the power to rebuild mathematics. this new foundation came with the introduction of ZFC. it is an attempt to systematically rebuild the previously known and accepted results of mathematics while working to eliminate the logical inconsistencies of previous naive set theory. from how it was made, ZFC does not posit the truth of any propositions insofar that it exists as starting axioms in which rules of inference can be applied. as with any theories of logic, its axioms must be decided and chosen. it could be noted that these axioms were posteriori in a sense that they were built to solve the issues such as Russel’s Paradox. it can then be argued that the process by in which these axioms were chosen is contingent upon the values of the persons that chose it as well as the developed culture of mathematics. in fact, it is by no means that ZFC is only the possible theory of mathematics (e.g. Model Theory, Category Theory). no matter the “objective” metaphysical existence of mathematical objects, by the way mathematics was built and practiced, these starting axioms still remain a choice.

to reiterate, the way mathematics has been agreed to be used by mathematicians, whichever system set in place still remains a choice. this reveals its use as pragmatic: the system, that is, ZFC was adapted because it works. this naturally extends out from its foundations to concrete mathematical objects studied in abstract algebra, analysis, etc. for example, a group is not just a set with specific rules with its binary operation; the construction of the properties that denote a Group came a posteriori in a way that it was discovered that the set of properties in the first place proved to be a useful abstraction to study. 

on a related note, i would argue that the existence of abstract mathematical objects actualize themselves by our need and desire for the world to conform to standard rules as appeal to our intuition and senses. the truth value of P: 1 + 1  = 2 in (P, S) in an arithmetic system S signifies an essence in which it “makes sense” that combining abstract objects  result to a set in which it succeeds singular objects by the value of each one of those objects. the value of (P, S) does not reveal a Platonic truth of our universe but instead a declaration of common sensical deductions. in such, a mathematical statement is a “model” the same way a bachelor is “unmarried”.

on usage:

regardless of the metaphysical existence of mathematical objects, it, as a system, is undoubtedly one of the finest works of humankind. i advise that one ought not to use this powerful tool to make claims of absolute truth. in a sense, the existence of mathematical objects remain irrelevant to how it ought be used. one should not at all invoke mathematics to justify repressive systems and to cause grave harm to humanity. as a tool, it must not be used for evil. one must always remain cautious of individuals who use mathematics as arguments by certainty. these individuals who swear by the sharp sword of mathematics is most likely using it to silence thought and keep one from questioning. always look at the mathematics; an equation is not just a set of symbols that denote some property; it is a theory of the world and this theory must be met with most criticisms when it is being used to make claims for human policies. look at the mathematics, specifically which assumptions were made by the ones who present them: it must reveal the true character of such persons.