Observations
The most basic principle of all is just that: meaning - the underlying principle, cause, or ‘reason’ for a thing. How that thing works. What it does.
Of course, all meanings for a thing are in relation to another, separate, thing; if anything is without meaning or purpose in relation to anything else, then it can directly be said to be meaningless. Meanings and principles are found, for any one object/event or conglomeration of object/events, to another object/event. Any - and all - object/events that have meaning always have them in relation to another object/event. There is never a circumstance where this is not the case. In essence, the very idea of an object/event having meaning or function in and of itself - without interacting with something else - is nonsensical in and of itself. What does time do? Where is space moving to? These ideas are unanswerable because they lack real answers altogether; the basic ideas present in them are themselves flawed - both, in fact, in the same way. And for this reason, meaning or function can always be said to be relative to something else.
Separately entirely, any object, event, or mind that exists within our reality does so because that object, event, or mind interacts at least on one level with some other object, event, or mind. Any which does not interact at all - on even a potential level - is not a part of our reality… does not exist; at least, not in relation to anything which shares existence with us. The instant that it does, on even a potential level, is enough for it to have always been a part of this existence - simply because the past, present, and future are all part of the same reality or existence. The same applies no matter what scale. So if there is more than one reality or existence - more than one sum totality of things - they cannot interact on any level, including that of potential development of equally potential interaction. Were these two existences to do so, they would in fact be one reality; one existence.
Drawing these two ideas together, there is only one existence in which we interact. That existence, or reality - since it has no other object or thing with which to have meaning in relation to - is without meaning. Our reality does not and cannot have meaning or purpose. This is an innate property; however, it is only an innate property of the sum totality as a single object. Either this is the case, or else the sum totality of events and individuals has meaning only as a background for other things to have meaning within - as anything that does have function always does so inside an overall reality or existence. Individual meanings and purposes - those we create for ourselves, essentially - are by nature unaffected, in either case. However, one could say that any personal motivation that relies upon the ‘universe’ or any outer source as the primary affirmation is incomplete at best; and more likely incoherent: for even if the sum totality of things could be said to have the meaning or function of allowing function itself to exist, that still would not provide any inherent functions or meanings for the objects or events within the overarching frame.
Taking from this, then, the least incoherent personal cause, or ‘reason’, is one that centers wholly on the individual while taking the remainder of existence into account. As personal causes go, the simpler they are the more readily they are followed and incorporated into an overall schema; the less complex an idea is the more universally it is - potentially - able to be applied. Without some sort of personal meaning and ‘reasoning’ through which to give the rest of the world meaning, and allow us as individuals to make sense of what is going on around us, no person can function; everyone needs some basic values through which we can understand or at least evaluate what goes on around us. It is an inherent property of abstracting sentience - human thought, if you will (not excluding any other sentience of a similar nature to our own) - to apply values and meanings to things around us. So, then, the best idea to use to do this - to make sense of the world around us - would be the simplest; as it would require the least interpretation to be useful in any given situation, and thus allow for the most to be done in that situation. All of this is reasoning behind the idea of ‘functionality’ - the idea that the more functional a person or idea is, the better off that person or idea is. The more you can do, the more you can get done of what you want. Also, the more effective you become, the more you should be able to see of what needs doing. Since there is no such thing as being inherently better or worse than another - as these ideas would imply some external set of priorities which cannot, or at least do not, exist - what ‘matters’ then is the simple issue of how much an individual accomplishes, and how much of that meets what that individual desires - or exceeds those desires altogether.
That, you see, is what is most allowed by the idea of functionality: center your cause and reasoning - your morality, if you will - upon the idea of becoming ever more capable, more ‘functional’, of simply doing more; and thus accomplish whatever you set yourself to. That is the idea, anyhow. How effective it is relies upon two very important factors. One, how honest you as an individual are with yourself when attempting to do this, and two, how much of the overall picture of the world at large you have when deciding upon what is or is not the most effective way of living, or action to take in the moment. But, then, this is implied somewhat in the idea of functionality itself - after all, being honest with yourself is more effective than being dishonest with yourself! The same, of course, applies with knowing the way of the world. If, for example, you know that a bridge will fail if it has so much weight on it, you can keep it from breaking by not putting that amount on it at any time - knowing the weight limit for the bridge allows you to keep from having to waste effort in rebuilding it. The same applies in nigh unto any other situation - the more you know about the principles involved in the scenario, the more effectively you can carry yourself. Know what you want, know how to go about getting it, and then do what best makes that happen; in both the long term and the short term.
Of course, that in and of itself is another concern: how much should you weigh what might happen in the future over what is happening now? Is it more functional, inherently, to hold yourself back now in order to have something left over later? Take, for example, the idea of scrimping and saving to be able to buy a new car two years from now. How do you know - truly know - that you will live that long? It might just be a limitation on yourself to even try for the car. Does that mean you should never even attempt to save the money for it? No, of course not - but at the same time, it also means that you should allow yourself some leeway in the now. It is a delicate balance; now against later. A good rule of thumb is to balance out by the probabilities of things occurring. For example, if you are in extremely bad health now, dieing of a disease per se, then there’s really no point in saving up like that. Spend now - on trying to find remedies or cures if you wish… or at least on your own comfort - rather than attempt to wait upon a day that will likely never come. On the other hand, if you know that having the car would be of great benefit to yourself in the days to come - then it would be a good idea to save your money.
Money, of course, is nothing more than a symbol of economic trade… a representation of a limited resource. So, too, is your ability to do a limited resource. There’s only so much time to go around, and there’s only so much you can do with a given amount of time - how much varies from person to person, and even from situation to situation - which means that the expression ‘time is money’ is a bit more literal than most people take it as. Whenever you wish to do something, you are essentially expending time to make it happen. This, too, helps with the idea of balancing the future against the present; know that it is all time. Time you have now is worth a little more, obviously, than time you will have later - but you always get it at the same allotted rate. What this is saying is perhaps not so simple, but here’s another way of putting it: When you are trading in your time for actions, you expect certain results from them. What results you get from your actions should always be a guide to your actions in the future. So what happens now can change what your plans for the future should be. This, of course, is obvious - but what is being discussed here is a somewhat different way of looking at the principle. If you think of the future as nothing more than a continuous set of new “nows” then you can evaluate a bit more clearly what to do now and what should be done later… or what should be spent now and what should be spent later. Think of it in the light of adding up all the monetary amounts you have had throughout your life, and then adjusting that sum by how well you’ve lived throughout; if you think in terms of total results, then you can understand what is the most functional thing to do in the instant - the ‘now’.
Of course, there is something in that last paragraph that might be a bit hard to see, superficially - the idea that how much you can control what becomes of yourself is itself controlled by external probability; a thing that we as people have very little influence over. The world is, according to the current physics paradigm, a chaotic place. The idea of ‘psi’ - in modern physics, anyhow - is that nothing is certain until it has happened, or been seen. Wave functions and all that, right? So, of course, all of this about functionality can itself be seen almost as more of an attempt at hedging one’s bets in a certain direction; of knowing what is most likely, and counting on that - that is the most functional thing to do, right?
Not necessarily. Remember, what we do now affects what happens later. So, if we control ourselves - and that is also an inherent idea of functionality; that we can choose what we do with ourselves and our lives - then the same can apply externally; we can control, or at least influence, how things interact with us, by controlling ourselves and knowing what impact what we do now will have later. In effect, the knowledgeable, self-controlled man is the same man who can influence his own destiny. Absolute control, of course, is outside of our scope: to do that would require absolute knowledge and absolute capability - something more attributed to deity than to man. Seeing as we are limited, localized beings… the odds of becoming omniscient and omnipotent are rather limited. So, you do what you can; worry about what you can affect, or at least impact.
That, of course, is the basic idea here. See how it applies itself rather neatly across the board? Many of these things are directly obvious with just a little bit of thought, and that is the appeal of the idea. Remember, any basic ideal one applies to the world or at least to how he interacts with the world can be evaluated by how readily useful it is - and that is exactly what this idea is being shown to be; readily useful. Of course, it is also somewhat limited… it doesn’t directly say what should b done, or what is the single most important thing. After all, what is useful varies from one person to the next. Some people believe that it isn’t worthwhile to stay alive forever; that doing so serves no purpose. Others, however, believe that the longer you live the better off you are - regardless of how happy you are while alive. That’s part of why you see so many tofu-and-acorn eating people out there: the kind of person who feeds his cats nut paste instead of meat. To the prior set of people, this sort of behavior is imbecilic; why live forever if you aren’t going to be happy with what you have now? (Remember that discussion - balance now against the future? This is another example).
Then again, functionality isn’t meant to evaluate those beliefs. It isn’t a belief system, it isn’t a religion, it isn’t a spiritual path. It is nothing more and nothing less than an attempted ‘practical philosophy’; a way of thinking meant to be applied to the everyday - and the overall - life.
* * * * * * *
Now, that being said, if one were to apply oneself to the idea of functionality, then it would become important to always be more functional - more capable - than one was before. It is, after all, more functional to become more functional; somewhat of a mobius strip of thought there, no? Either way, it is the case. So, of course, means to become more functional - on an inherent and honest level - then become themselves significant and desirable to the individual, and the society. Of course, since societies are made up of individuals this idea can collapse back down to the individual readily enough; and since it is difficult indeed to create an ideal for a society and make it actually apply to that society, it is better to talk on terms of the individual: for since society is made up of individuals, then at some point one must affect a large number of individuals to accomplish the goal of affecting society; which means that the idea of changing societies - as stated before - collapses back down to the idea changing of individuals. This all carries with it a certain other onus, however; how, exactly, much effort should the functionalist place in changing society? How much effort should that individual place in making others more capable instead of himself? Be prepared for the obvious here - exactly that amount which is most functional for him. This means that such efforts should only be made if it would in the long run benefit the individual in some way; make things easier for him, or allow him to accomplish more with his own time. If, for example, the functionalist finds himself continuously supporting others, then it behooves him to find them ways to support themselves - or else remove their support from his activities altogether (assuming that to do so wouldn’t cost him too much).
Now, to become more functional overall is a good goal, but how far does one go? Where is the limit? Obviously, the simplest answer is that there should be no limit. That one should become as functional as possible, regardless of how far that actually is. So, in practical terms, the best goal would be to become completely, perfectly capable - of doing anything. Now, how likely this is, is itself another story - but that is irrelevant to a goal in and of itself. Why settle when you can actually do more - more readily, more easily, more accurately, more in quantity, etc.? To the functionalist, there is no valid reason. If it is more functional to do something a given way - or just to do it at all - then it should be done. So, then, the overall goal should be limitless capability.
Of course, to achieve that means that one must define limitless capability; and in that one’s own ability to perceive what this means itself must be evaluated - after all, we are limited beings with only so much in the way of defining what ‘limitless capability’ really is. So, over time, that goal itself must be changed or re-evaluated. So the idea of changing one’s own self must be included in the process of becoming more effective. The better one has means of doing this, the more effective he can become - and sooner. So what is the most effective way to go about this?
To do that, one must have an understanding of what it is, precisely, that human minds do and are. Psychology is, certainly, effective at teaching this… but there are multiple psychology theories, and some of them conflict with one another. At the very best, they are limited in what their statements are, or at least the questions they can answer. The field of psychology isn’t very good, right now, at implicitly helping individuals reform themselves and their ideas. The most each theory has is that, “it is something you need to figure out for yourself;” which, of course, is really no answer at all - at least, not as far as actual means to figure these things out. Given this limitation, perhaps the physical structure holds the key. But in this area too, there are limitations. The human brain, as most know, is a collection of neurons and synapses - neuron connections - that ‘fire’ or send electrical impulses to one another. It has even been determined that there are localized regions of this mess that are ‘responsible for’ the same things: the same general area in each person’s brain does the same thing… there is an area of the brain that controls speech - though it is indeed shaped and patterned differently for each person - and there is an area for sight, and so forth. Now, the one thing that is almost impossible to determine is where thoughts come from within the human brain. Physically, there is no way to determine this. After all, what is to prevent one neuron from ‘firing’ as opposed to another? Furthermore, what determines the synapse the neuro-electric signal travels to? The only descriptions attempted thus far are of signals already on path; not ones that are created. Supposedly, this is an entirely random thing.
Yet, as history, common sense, and human nature all prove, human thought is not a random thing - at least, not in its totality. We can intentionally think of specific things. We sometimes can even override the normal process of associations - meaning that ‘I see chocolate, therefore I’m hungry,’ when including conscious control, can become, ‘I see chocolate, so what?’ Nothing controls or shapes that aside from that most intangible of things - the human will. Now, there are many who would stop there, and say that is enough; the human will exists - which is obvious - and has an impact on the world (or at least our selves) - and that’s all that matters. It is not, however, enough for the individual who seeks unlimited functionality. It is essential for such an individual to know what, precisely, is going on when this occurs: how we affect ourselves in this way. Given that the level of physics that we’re discussing includes all physically observable forces, and that it has been shown that these forces are the ‘smallest’ you get as far as physical phenomena go, two things are being said here. First - since these forces are the way that thoughts occur within the physical structure of the brain - there is something shaping and providing ‘order’ for these forces, or at least how they interact with the brain. Second, they cannot in and of themselves be material forces - they would have been observed if that were the case. So whatever the human will is, two things can be said about it. It is an immaterial thing that acts upon the physical forces controlling the brain’s activity.
What does that idea - the idea of an immaterial force (for anything which causes material objects or energy to fall into specific patterns can indeed be said to be a force) - have to do with enhanced functionality? Everything. If this is an actuality - if this immaterial force exists - then it stands to reason that by manipulating our own selves, by controlling and over time shaping ourselves, we can control and even direct that force. One of the greatest limitations to limitless capability is the simple fact that we are limited to what our bodies and minds are capable of inherently. This provides the potential for - not even a guarantee, but merely a potential for - a loophole in that process, especially when combined with another factor: the four physical forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force - out of which the latter three have been shown to be discrete manifestations of the same phenomenon [meaning that all but the first have been ‘unified’ into one potential force that has all the characteristics of those it combines]) also show specific pattern to their existence. All have definite and repeating characteristics; they appear consistently and do not, by and large, ‘shift’ or change radically for no reason. Yet all are made up of the same kind of energy, at the lowest of levels. The individual quantum is indivisible, and each of the forces is made up of quantum ‘packets’ (as they’re called) and nothing more. So all of these quantum packets - each of which occupy one, distinct, point in space - somehow interact with one another to maintain a specific form… despite the fact that they have no physical means to ‘communicate’ between one another. Yet, as we know from the fact that these forces - and all the material world for that matter - exist, these quantum packets must have some means of communicating information from one to the other. Some sort of web-work that exists alongside -- rather: interstitial to -- the physically existent world. This, if anything, is the place where the so-called ‘mental force’ must reside (the force or energy which allows for human thought [at least] to be; for non-random intentional ideas and thoughts to occur).
Before going any further, it is necessary to point out that there is nothing indicating in any way that this ‘mental force’ has any inherent impact on the outside ‘information network’ that must exist. Solely that this network is made up of at least similar such immaterial forces - though they can thought to be different ‘forms’ of the energy, as they affect different things and do not seem to interact with one another directly - which is all that can be directly shown.
But as was said earlier by the definition of a reality… anything that exists does so not in a vacuum but rather in a cohesive whole; it interacts with other things in the world. If this mental energy and this ‘physical immaterial energy’ (or ‘these’ as the case may be) exist in the same place - or lack thereof in physical terms - then you can be fairly certain that at least in some limited manner they interact.
So, if enough mastery of this mental force is achieved, if enough study is made of it, it should be possible to exert some sort of control over the phenomenon that creates nonrandom occurrences out of the random world - perhaps even through nothing more than control of self. Obviously, though - especially given the case history of parapsychology studies - such ‘mental energy’ doesn’t exist on an energetic enough basis in one individual mind to exert any real sort of impact. So if this study is to be done, there should also be study made in how to magnify this presence. That at least, would most likely require machinery. In the meantime, though, there is another question. How useful - functional, right? - is the study of this ‘mental force’? That is actually fairly simple in the short-run. Despite how far off the previous benefits are, there are also more immediate benefits from such a study. First and foremost is the most simple effect that, as previously noted, these forces are what affect the human mind itself. By learning the means - and mechanisms - through which it does so, you can learn to if not control, then at least predict this occurrence... which, of course, leads to the end result that you can predict how you will change as a person over time. Given enough time and knowledge of this process, the questions of how something will affect you become somewhat obvious. You know who you are going to become before you become that person… so you can, in essence, control (well, influence) your own psyche’s destiny.
You can, for example, choose the person who is more capable over the one who is not, on a psychological level. This being an ongoing process means that you can in time take yourself very far away from who you were, or it can mean that you only garner subtle changes to your psyche over time… in some cases, these two are not very dissimilar. What it does mean is that you can control the overall process, without question.
(Note: This text is incomplete at best. The process is an ongoing one.)
Of course, all meanings for a thing are in relation to another, separate, thing; if anything is without meaning or purpose in relation to anything else, then it can directly be said to be meaningless. Meanings and principles are found, for any one object/event or conglomeration of object/events, to another object/event. Any - and all - object/events that have meaning always have them in relation to another object/event. There is never a circumstance where this is not the case. In essence, the very idea of an object/event having meaning or function in and of itself - without interacting with something else - is nonsensical in and of itself. What does time do? Where is space moving to? These ideas are unanswerable because they lack real answers altogether; the basic ideas present in them are themselves flawed - both, in fact, in the same way. And for this reason, meaning or function can always be said to be relative to something else.
Separately entirely, any object, event, or mind that exists within our reality does so because that object, event, or mind interacts at least on one level with some other object, event, or mind. Any which does not interact at all - on even a potential level - is not a part of our reality… does not exist; at least, not in relation to anything which shares existence with us. The instant that it does, on even a potential level, is enough for it to have always been a part of this existence - simply because the past, present, and future are all part of the same reality or existence. The same applies no matter what scale. So if there is more than one reality or existence - more than one sum totality of things - they cannot interact on any level, including that of potential development of equally potential interaction. Were these two existences to do so, they would in fact be one reality; one existence.
Drawing these two ideas together, there is only one existence in which we interact. That existence, or reality - since it has no other object or thing with which to have meaning in relation to - is without meaning. Our reality does not and cannot have meaning or purpose. This is an innate property; however, it is only an innate property of the sum totality as a single object. Either this is the case, or else the sum totality of events and individuals has meaning only as a background for other things to have meaning within - as anything that does have function always does so inside an overall reality or existence. Individual meanings and purposes - those we create for ourselves, essentially - are by nature unaffected, in either case. However, one could say that any personal motivation that relies upon the ‘universe’ or any outer source as the primary affirmation is incomplete at best; and more likely incoherent: for even if the sum totality of things could be said to have the meaning or function of allowing function itself to exist, that still would not provide any inherent functions or meanings for the objects or events within the overarching frame.
Taking from this, then, the least incoherent personal cause, or ‘reason’, is one that centers wholly on the individual while taking the remainder of existence into account. As personal causes go, the simpler they are the more readily they are followed and incorporated into an overall schema; the less complex an idea is the more universally it is - potentially - able to be applied. Without some sort of personal meaning and ‘reasoning’ through which to give the rest of the world meaning, and allow us as individuals to make sense of what is going on around us, no person can function; everyone needs some basic values through which we can understand or at least evaluate what goes on around us. It is an inherent property of abstracting sentience - human thought, if you will (not excluding any other sentience of a similar nature to our own) - to apply values and meanings to things around us. So, then, the best idea to use to do this - to make sense of the world around us - would be the simplest; as it would require the least interpretation to be useful in any given situation, and thus allow for the most to be done in that situation. All of this is reasoning behind the idea of ‘functionality’ - the idea that the more functional a person or idea is, the better off that person or idea is. The more you can do, the more you can get done of what you want. Also, the more effective you become, the more you should be able to see of what needs doing. Since there is no such thing as being inherently better or worse than another - as these ideas would imply some external set of priorities which cannot, or at least do not, exist - what ‘matters’ then is the simple issue of how much an individual accomplishes, and how much of that meets what that individual desires - or exceeds those desires altogether.
That, you see, is what is most allowed by the idea of functionality: center your cause and reasoning - your morality, if you will - upon the idea of becoming ever more capable, more ‘functional’, of simply doing more; and thus accomplish whatever you set yourself to. That is the idea, anyhow. How effective it is relies upon two very important factors. One, how honest you as an individual are with yourself when attempting to do this, and two, how much of the overall picture of the world at large you have when deciding upon what is or is not the most effective way of living, or action to take in the moment. But, then, this is implied somewhat in the idea of functionality itself - after all, being honest with yourself is more effective than being dishonest with yourself! The same, of course, applies with knowing the way of the world. If, for example, you know that a bridge will fail if it has so much weight on it, you can keep it from breaking by not putting that amount on it at any time - knowing the weight limit for the bridge allows you to keep from having to waste effort in rebuilding it. The same applies in nigh unto any other situation - the more you know about the principles involved in the scenario, the more effectively you can carry yourself. Know what you want, know how to go about getting it, and then do what best makes that happen; in both the long term and the short term.
Of course, that in and of itself is another concern: how much should you weigh what might happen in the future over what is happening now? Is it more functional, inherently, to hold yourself back now in order to have something left over later? Take, for example, the idea of scrimping and saving to be able to buy a new car two years from now. How do you know - truly know - that you will live that long? It might just be a limitation on yourself to even try for the car. Does that mean you should never even attempt to save the money for it? No, of course not - but at the same time, it also means that you should allow yourself some leeway in the now. It is a delicate balance; now against later. A good rule of thumb is to balance out by the probabilities of things occurring. For example, if you are in extremely bad health now, dieing of a disease per se, then there’s really no point in saving up like that. Spend now - on trying to find remedies or cures if you wish… or at least on your own comfort - rather than attempt to wait upon a day that will likely never come. On the other hand, if you know that having the car would be of great benefit to yourself in the days to come - then it would be a good idea to save your money.
Money, of course, is nothing more than a symbol of economic trade… a representation of a limited resource. So, too, is your ability to do a limited resource. There’s only so much time to go around, and there’s only so much you can do with a given amount of time - how much varies from person to person, and even from situation to situation - which means that the expression ‘time is money’ is a bit more literal than most people take it as. Whenever you wish to do something, you are essentially expending time to make it happen. This, too, helps with the idea of balancing the future against the present; know that it is all time. Time you have now is worth a little more, obviously, than time you will have later - but you always get it at the same allotted rate. What this is saying is perhaps not so simple, but here’s another way of putting it: When you are trading in your time for actions, you expect certain results from them. What results you get from your actions should always be a guide to your actions in the future. So what happens now can change what your plans for the future should be. This, of course, is obvious - but what is being discussed here is a somewhat different way of looking at the principle. If you think of the future as nothing more than a continuous set of new “nows” then you can evaluate a bit more clearly what to do now and what should be done later… or what should be spent now and what should be spent later. Think of it in the light of adding up all the monetary amounts you have had throughout your life, and then adjusting that sum by how well you’ve lived throughout; if you think in terms of total results, then you can understand what is the most functional thing to do in the instant - the ‘now’.
Of course, there is something in that last paragraph that might be a bit hard to see, superficially - the idea that how much you can control what becomes of yourself is itself controlled by external probability; a thing that we as people have very little influence over. The world is, according to the current physics paradigm, a chaotic place. The idea of ‘psi’ - in modern physics, anyhow - is that nothing is certain until it has happened, or been seen. Wave functions and all that, right? So, of course, all of this about functionality can itself be seen almost as more of an attempt at hedging one’s bets in a certain direction; of knowing what is most likely, and counting on that - that is the most functional thing to do, right?
Not necessarily. Remember, what we do now affects what happens later. So, if we control ourselves - and that is also an inherent idea of functionality; that we can choose what we do with ourselves and our lives - then the same can apply externally; we can control, or at least influence, how things interact with us, by controlling ourselves and knowing what impact what we do now will have later. In effect, the knowledgeable, self-controlled man is the same man who can influence his own destiny. Absolute control, of course, is outside of our scope: to do that would require absolute knowledge and absolute capability - something more attributed to deity than to man. Seeing as we are limited, localized beings… the odds of becoming omniscient and omnipotent are rather limited. So, you do what you can; worry about what you can affect, or at least impact.
That, of course, is the basic idea here. See how it applies itself rather neatly across the board? Many of these things are directly obvious with just a little bit of thought, and that is the appeal of the idea. Remember, any basic ideal one applies to the world or at least to how he interacts with the world can be evaluated by how readily useful it is - and that is exactly what this idea is being shown to be; readily useful. Of course, it is also somewhat limited… it doesn’t directly say what should b done, or what is the single most important thing. After all, what is useful varies from one person to the next. Some people believe that it isn’t worthwhile to stay alive forever; that doing so serves no purpose. Others, however, believe that the longer you live the better off you are - regardless of how happy you are while alive. That’s part of why you see so many tofu-and-acorn eating people out there: the kind of person who feeds his cats nut paste instead of meat. To the prior set of people, this sort of behavior is imbecilic; why live forever if you aren’t going to be happy with what you have now? (Remember that discussion - balance now against the future? This is another example).
Then again, functionality isn’t meant to evaluate those beliefs. It isn’t a belief system, it isn’t a religion, it isn’t a spiritual path. It is nothing more and nothing less than an attempted ‘practical philosophy’; a way of thinking meant to be applied to the everyday - and the overall - life.
* * * * * * *
Now, that being said, if one were to apply oneself to the idea of functionality, then it would become important to always be more functional - more capable - than one was before. It is, after all, more functional to become more functional; somewhat of a mobius strip of thought there, no? Either way, it is the case. So, of course, means to become more functional - on an inherent and honest level - then become themselves significant and desirable to the individual, and the society. Of course, since societies are made up of individuals this idea can collapse back down to the individual readily enough; and since it is difficult indeed to create an ideal for a society and make it actually apply to that society, it is better to talk on terms of the individual: for since society is made up of individuals, then at some point one must affect a large number of individuals to accomplish the goal of affecting society; which means that the idea of changing societies - as stated before - collapses back down to the idea changing of individuals. This all carries with it a certain other onus, however; how, exactly, much effort should the functionalist place in changing society? How much effort should that individual place in making others more capable instead of himself? Be prepared for the obvious here - exactly that amount which is most functional for him. This means that such efforts should only be made if it would in the long run benefit the individual in some way; make things easier for him, or allow him to accomplish more with his own time. If, for example, the functionalist finds himself continuously supporting others, then it behooves him to find them ways to support themselves - or else remove their support from his activities altogether (assuming that to do so wouldn’t cost him too much).
Now, to become more functional overall is a good goal, but how far does one go? Where is the limit? Obviously, the simplest answer is that there should be no limit. That one should become as functional as possible, regardless of how far that actually is. So, in practical terms, the best goal would be to become completely, perfectly capable - of doing anything. Now, how likely this is, is itself another story - but that is irrelevant to a goal in and of itself. Why settle when you can actually do more - more readily, more easily, more accurately, more in quantity, etc.? To the functionalist, there is no valid reason. If it is more functional to do something a given way - or just to do it at all - then it should be done. So, then, the overall goal should be limitless capability.
Of course, to achieve that means that one must define limitless capability; and in that one’s own ability to perceive what this means itself must be evaluated - after all, we are limited beings with only so much in the way of defining what ‘limitless capability’ really is. So, over time, that goal itself must be changed or re-evaluated. So the idea of changing one’s own self must be included in the process of becoming more effective. The better one has means of doing this, the more effective he can become - and sooner. So what is the most effective way to go about this?
To do that, one must have an understanding of what it is, precisely, that human minds do and are. Psychology is, certainly, effective at teaching this… but there are multiple psychology theories, and some of them conflict with one another. At the very best, they are limited in what their statements are, or at least the questions they can answer. The field of psychology isn’t very good, right now, at implicitly helping individuals reform themselves and their ideas. The most each theory has is that, “it is something you need to figure out for yourself;” which, of course, is really no answer at all - at least, not as far as actual means to figure these things out. Given this limitation, perhaps the physical structure holds the key. But in this area too, there are limitations. The human brain, as most know, is a collection of neurons and synapses - neuron connections - that ‘fire’ or send electrical impulses to one another. It has even been determined that there are localized regions of this mess that are ‘responsible for’ the same things: the same general area in each person’s brain does the same thing… there is an area of the brain that controls speech - though it is indeed shaped and patterned differently for each person - and there is an area for sight, and so forth. Now, the one thing that is almost impossible to determine is where thoughts come from within the human brain. Physically, there is no way to determine this. After all, what is to prevent one neuron from ‘firing’ as opposed to another? Furthermore, what determines the synapse the neuro-electric signal travels to? The only descriptions attempted thus far are of signals already on path; not ones that are created. Supposedly, this is an entirely random thing.
Yet, as history, common sense, and human nature all prove, human thought is not a random thing - at least, not in its totality. We can intentionally think of specific things. We sometimes can even override the normal process of associations - meaning that ‘I see chocolate, therefore I’m hungry,’ when including conscious control, can become, ‘I see chocolate, so what?’ Nothing controls or shapes that aside from that most intangible of things - the human will. Now, there are many who would stop there, and say that is enough; the human will exists - which is obvious - and has an impact on the world (or at least our selves) - and that’s all that matters. It is not, however, enough for the individual who seeks unlimited functionality. It is essential for such an individual to know what, precisely, is going on when this occurs: how we affect ourselves in this way. Given that the level of physics that we’re discussing includes all physically observable forces, and that it has been shown that these forces are the ‘smallest’ you get as far as physical phenomena go, two things are being said here. First - since these forces are the way that thoughts occur within the physical structure of the brain - there is something shaping and providing ‘order’ for these forces, or at least how they interact with the brain. Second, they cannot in and of themselves be material forces - they would have been observed if that were the case. So whatever the human will is, two things can be said about it. It is an immaterial thing that acts upon the physical forces controlling the brain’s activity.
What does that idea - the idea of an immaterial force (for anything which causes material objects or energy to fall into specific patterns can indeed be said to be a force) - have to do with enhanced functionality? Everything. If this is an actuality - if this immaterial force exists - then it stands to reason that by manipulating our own selves, by controlling and over time shaping ourselves, we can control and even direct that force. One of the greatest limitations to limitless capability is the simple fact that we are limited to what our bodies and minds are capable of inherently. This provides the potential for - not even a guarantee, but merely a potential for - a loophole in that process, especially when combined with another factor: the four physical forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force - out of which the latter three have been shown to be discrete manifestations of the same phenomenon [meaning that all but the first have been ‘unified’ into one potential force that has all the characteristics of those it combines]) also show specific pattern to their existence. All have definite and repeating characteristics; they appear consistently and do not, by and large, ‘shift’ or change radically for no reason. Yet all are made up of the same kind of energy, at the lowest of levels. The individual quantum is indivisible, and each of the forces is made up of quantum ‘packets’ (as they’re called) and nothing more. So all of these quantum packets - each of which occupy one, distinct, point in space - somehow interact with one another to maintain a specific form… despite the fact that they have no physical means to ‘communicate’ between one another. Yet, as we know from the fact that these forces - and all the material world for that matter - exist, these quantum packets must have some means of communicating information from one to the other. Some sort of web-work that exists alongside -- rather: interstitial to -- the physically existent world. This, if anything, is the place where the so-called ‘mental force’ must reside (the force or energy which allows for human thought [at least] to be; for non-random intentional ideas and thoughts to occur).
Before going any further, it is necessary to point out that there is nothing indicating in any way that this ‘mental force’ has any inherent impact on the outside ‘information network’ that must exist. Solely that this network is made up of at least similar such immaterial forces - though they can thought to be different ‘forms’ of the energy, as they affect different things and do not seem to interact with one another directly - which is all that can be directly shown.
But as was said earlier by the definition of a reality… anything that exists does so not in a vacuum but rather in a cohesive whole; it interacts with other things in the world. If this mental energy and this ‘physical immaterial energy’ (or ‘these’ as the case may be) exist in the same place - or lack thereof in physical terms - then you can be fairly certain that at least in some limited manner they interact.
So, if enough mastery of this mental force is achieved, if enough study is made of it, it should be possible to exert some sort of control over the phenomenon that creates nonrandom occurrences out of the random world - perhaps even through nothing more than control of self. Obviously, though - especially given the case history of parapsychology studies - such ‘mental energy’ doesn’t exist on an energetic enough basis in one individual mind to exert any real sort of impact. So if this study is to be done, there should also be study made in how to magnify this presence. That at least, would most likely require machinery. In the meantime, though, there is another question. How useful - functional, right? - is the study of this ‘mental force’? That is actually fairly simple in the short-run. Despite how far off the previous benefits are, there are also more immediate benefits from such a study. First and foremost is the most simple effect that, as previously noted, these forces are what affect the human mind itself. By learning the means - and mechanisms - through which it does so, you can learn to if not control, then at least predict this occurrence... which, of course, leads to the end result that you can predict how you will change as a person over time. Given enough time and knowledge of this process, the questions of how something will affect you become somewhat obvious. You know who you are going to become before you become that person… so you can, in essence, control (well, influence) your own psyche’s destiny.
You can, for example, choose the person who is more capable over the one who is not, on a psychological level. This being an ongoing process means that you can in time take yourself very far away from who you were, or it can mean that you only garner subtle changes to your psyche over time… in some cases, these two are not very dissimilar. What it does mean is that you can control the overall process, without question.
(Note: This text is incomplete at best. The process is an ongoing one.)