The 9 x 9 Grid
The purpose of this grid is to permit vector summation for patterns that are members of the objective, subjective, normative or mystical quadrant. This cannot be done in The 8 x 8 Grid grid because that grid doesn't have slots whose X or Y coordinate is zero. Such slots have no relativized classical or romantic quality at all. The origin, nothing, has neither.
The slots with a coordinate whose value of zero represent nonrelativized quality. Since these slots represent nonrelativized quality there might be no way to infer from the already constructed theory what should be the function of these slots. I have assigned my own hypothetical function for them in Four Mountains and intend to elaborate on that in this wiki later. Regardless of the meaning of the nonrelativized slots, they have to be included or vector summation doesn't work or it works only within a quadrant but not between them.
Vector Summation Examples Revisited
Next, we will revisit some vector summation examples presented in Excellence, Decency and Badness. The examples have been modified to better match the names of grid slots. This doesn't mean the original examples were wrong. It only means that as the mathematical rigor of our model has increased we can obtain more plausible examples by slightly modifying the original examples. The purpose of increasing plausibility is not to hide a defect in the Analytic Metaphysics of Quality but merely to improve the pedagogic quality of the examples. In order to make the diagrams less messy I have also chosen to portray each vector so that it begins from the origin. This didn't seem useful in the original examples as they didn't include any names for the slots.
Strange Young Man Revisited
- Originally presented here.
Suppose you’re a man of average size, and you’re sitting in a café with your girlfriend, who’s fat. You’re cuddling, but only a little, seem happy and are obviously both in love and in a relationship. A strange young man walks up to you with a jesting smile. He is not threatening at all but has an energetic gait and inquisitive eyes. Without a moment’s hesitation he says: ”Your girlfriend is fat”, and stares at you eyes wide open, awaiting a reply. The man is investing a lot of romantic composure and energy for saying something obvious, irrelevant and provocative, which probably shouldn't be said at all. It is SAD and FRIVOLOUS to whimsically break social conventions like this. We express this as vector a in the following diagram.
You look at the man for a few seconds and then said in a passionless, analytic tone: ”I feel bigger than her.” By doing so you HOPE and EXPECT to affirm that your girlfriend is able to please you in a way that is in accordance with prevalent gender stereotypes. (If you did this without context you'd HOPE or EXPECT that your girlfriend is fine with you speaking about her like that to others for no reason.) In addition, you come out as capable of defending your girlfriend’s honor from malicious strangers. Even though both the man’s comment and your reply were flawed their sum is optimal. In the following graph, your answer has been added to the young man’s attempt to initiate conversation, producing the vector a + b.
This may have defused the situation and the young weirdo could be leaving without even having wiped that grin off his face. Your girlfriend is likely to be as minimally offended by the exchange of words as possible. She will possibly even display more affectionate behavior towards you than she usually does. You are HAPPY because your CALCULATING saved the day.
- SAD + HOPE = HAPPY
- FRIVOLOUS + EXPECT = CALCULATING
However, we may also interpret the situation differently. It quite obviously belongs to gnostic epistomology, but it might also be perceived as a mystical even instead of a subjective event. It's possible that it should be perceived as both, or that perceiving it as either one affects the perception of the event. Ie. if we perceive the even subjectively, it becomes that, and if we perceive the event mystically, it becomes that. In this case it might be relevant to perceive the event in both ways.
Indeed, the best reaction in an AMOQ event (such as a young man making the aforementioned slightly inappropriate comment) might sometimes be such that it's not of crucial importance whether the event is relativized subjectively or mystically. In this mystical case, your ACTIVE defense against the jesting young man might make the man respect you, which in turn would be a better basis for beings FRIENDs. Your girlfriend might object to that, though.
Long Scale or Short Scale Revisited
- Originally presented here.
Let’s have another example. Suppose two friends of yours are debating a political issue at a party with other people listening attentively. They are being pretty rational – referring to statistics and all. The only problem is they’re speaking English although their native language is Finnish. Because the Finnish language uses the long scale they consistently use the word ”billion” to refer to the number 1,000,000,000,000 when, in fact, most English speakers would call that a trillion because they use the short scale. This reduces the classical quality of their otherwise optimal discussion a slightly. Namely, it makes the discussion a bad because their lack of factual knowledge makes their authoritative declarations either seem like preposterous overstatements or, even worse, are accepted by the audience as true and relied upon. If that were to happen and damage were to ensue the unintended result of the discussion would be OPPRESSIVE. The personal authority of your friends causes the audience to listen attentively but this only makes the audience subject to SLAVERY under ignorance. I concede that the "slavery" part is a little more far fetched than what would be perfect for this.
Your friends' misuse of words resembles an internal computing error. Detecting the error does not necessarily require any objective information about the tangible world. It could be detected just by observing them to make some statement as if a million times million is a billion. Now you detect the mistake. You figure out in your head, what it is and what should be said to correct it. This quick and simple figuring-out process can be expressed as vector b. IT is a SYNTACTIC remark.
You make the correction matter-of-factly and fluently. The result is the good vector a + b:
- SLAVERY + IT = RIGHT
- OPPRESSIVE + SYNTACTIC = RESEARCH
Obviously, this result is not optimal even thgouh in the orignial research an optimal result was supposedly achieved. Therefore, it might be worthwhile now to note that it's not necessary to specify ontology in order to point out the difference between the long scale and the short scale. If ontology is not specified, vector b would belong to the slot called NOVICE, as the remark is something even a novice could easily make. In addition, not specifying ontology would turn a + b into a SUCCESS vector. This makes sense because specifying ontology is redundant in this kind of a simple case. And by virtue of making sense it is readily deemed to have some INTELLECTUAL quality. However, this example couldn't have been presented like that in the 8 x 8 version of the grid because horizontal vectors hadn't been introduced.
Bodhisattva's Enthusiasm Revisited
- Originally presented here.
Once the Bodhisattva was watching a music video he thought was awesome. The music video kept repating the phrase: ”Understand the concept of love!” It was like a mantra and rhytmically essential for the music video. The Bodhisattva’s appreciation was pretty optimal as he tends to have a well-adjusted mind. The appreciation can be expressed as a subjective vector a. The Bodhisattva was HAPPY and given that he happened to be in a Buddhist temple his CALCULATING faculty suggested that it would be appropriate to show the video to a nearby Buddhist.
After watching the video for a moment the Buddhist said: ”It would be better if it didn’t have the word ’concept’”. Here the Buddhist relativized the video to his normative interpretation of Buddhism. He expected the video to advocate the abandonment of conceptual thinking in some smart way. He tried to apply PARSING and THINKING to make the video match a normative interpretation of Buddhism, probably with good intentions as Buddhism was important for him.
But the Bodhisattva just showed the video because he thought it was cool. It had a man riding a skateboard and so on. The Bodhisattva, being a somewhat childlike character, was disappointed by the Buddhist's tepid normative remark. To the Bodhisattva's inconvenience it projected him into an exaggerated state of mind a + b that had an excess of annoyance but less classical content as the Buddhist had refused the Bodhisattva’s classical justification (in this case the justification was to SHARE a FUN activity) for liking the video. There was no reason to continue talking about the video. The annoyance could not be used for anything, and the Bodhisattva had to wait till it passes. This FRIVOLOUS dogmatic assertivity of the Buddhist made the Bodhisattva SAD.
Note how the original diagram was quite out of proportion as b is too short. I made it at a time I hadn't defined the slots.
- HAPPY + THINKING = SAD
- CALCULATING + PARSING = FRIVOLOUS
One Plus One Equals One Revisited
- Originally presented here.
During a certain wedding ceremony the minister said something so striking that I still remember it. In an authoritative tone he said that although 1 + 1 usually equals two, a wedding is a ceremony that makes 1 + 1 equal one. The minister was doing his job. Because he's a religious authority he's working with the mystical quadrant. His task is to harmonize the beliefs of his congregation and their families.
In this instance, the minister attempts to convert the subjective quality of the wedding ceremony (ie. anticipation, happiness etc. that is HAPPY) to mystical quality such as HARMONY that makes the marriage compatible with prevailing CULTURAL conditions. He turned the wedding's subjective aspects, including that guests were by default HAPPY or at least subjectively oriended that the couple is getting married and that the couple must have been CALCULATING it is wise for them to get married, into an abstract mystical bond that exists between the bride and the groom and between the couple and the surrounding community. He achieved this goal by making a normative remark that, if detached from context, appears to be normatively ERRONEOUS or something that could "NEVER" be taken seriously in a normative context. Surely it is possible to make an arithmetic in which 1 + 1 = 1 but the minister's rhetoric draws its power from the fact that this isn't usual and isn't usually done just like that.
In isolation the minister's remark is just a pompous way of incompletely defining an unusual system of arithmetic. But in the context that subjective quality was already present this normatively bad remark transformed that subjective quality into mystical quality.
All guests listened willingly and without objection to an authoritative but rationally and simplistically weak mathematical statement. This meant they were witnessing something more important than that particular statement's mathematical quality. The minister actualized the sanctity of the marriage by showing that we are willing to accept irrationality for its sake if said irrationality just appears to be of a FANCY nature. In other words, there's supposed to be something FANCY in a marriage - no big surprise there. And the minister used his authority to assist in that.
For brevity, I won't individually cover each ethical (ie. good) state of mind, such as one in which a wedding guest would be having FUN or expecting marriage as RECREATIONAL. I will only examine ethical and gnostic wedding guests who are HAPPY. But in every case of having a subjectively ethical wedding guest the result of the minister's rhetoric is either nonrelativized or good. However, there's one exception to that.
For a marriage guest who is in the state of HOPE - who is EXPECTING something - the outcome of the minister's rhetoric is lust. Marriage guests aren't supposed to expect the marriage to last. They are supposed to take the existence of the marriage for granted. Lusty or GREEDY marriage guests would be subjectively inclined to impose the marriage of the man and wife as a bond that forces them to be together instead of enjoying the fact that they are together. Luckily, the minister most certainly said also other things that took this risk factor in account. I won't examine them here because I don't remember them.
- HAPPY + NEVER = FANCY
- CALCULATING + ERRONEOUS = FANCY
There are also possible good outcomes, depending on the state of mind of the wedding guests. The following outcome is excellent:
- SHARE + NEVER = HARMONY
- STYLISTIC + ERRONEOUS = HARMONY
and the following outcome is good:
- WHAT? + NEVER = YAY!
- INNOCENT + ERRONEOUS = CELEBATING
However, we've not yet described the slot FANCY. In fact, we've described no nonrelaitivized slots at all. That's what the next article is about.