On a personal note...
Over time I've sought to find a psychologically satisfying definition not of objective reality by my own subjective reality. The more factors I identified the more variables I dealt with. In a sense the more, variables I was able to account for the more variable my reality becomes. That is a can account for a fixed point or treat certain factors as unchanging; however I haven't defined a constant paradigm, currently.
In defining that which we experience we place a parenthesis around that which is to be explained creating an abstraction or theorem for an event i.e. science--the interaction between the logical and physical part of the brain, the part of us the seeks to makes sense and filter the world around us through a series of filters and parameters. Little do we know that the cortex is often superceded by the amygdila. How lofty have we grown to realize that we consist only of thinking things. That part is only one piece of the whole. We consist of a vast network of interacting parts and the only entity behind the steering wheel is of course DNA. When we place a parenthesis around something and upgrade to the meta we are no longer experiencing and only talking about what is to be experienced.
For example: mathematics: doing math
(mathematics): talking about mathematics
((mathematics)): talking about talking about other ideas and postulating wrt to talking about mathematics
(....((mathematics))...): describing the process of what is metamath given a finite number of abstractions
And here where's the fucked up part comes in: talking about how to define a meta process or meta structure inherently becomes meta in itself.
But now let's get a little pragmatic here.
Purpose for/of abstraction: game playing, and intellectual masturbation (perhaps).
I mean some people like to work out in the gym and keep their body toned, and if you do keep the process up long enough you may even become "ripped" in time. (wrt to this subject I'm really just talking about antlers)
So essentially, the game playing is another way to move things with your mind rewarded positively by the amygdila.
In conclusion: I'm really just dancing a round an underlying idea which I believe is better stated implicitly for the time being.
So where is the origin?
An appendix:
[r]eality is what ever we believe to be true. That is, we have a set of unknowns to every condition we can postulate, its up to us to use the axiom of choice and pick an element out of the unknown to see how far the rabbit hole goes.
In defining that which we experience we place a parenthesis around that which is to be explained creating an abstraction or theorem for an event i.e. science--the interaction between the logical and physical part of the brain, the part of us the seeks to makes sense and filter the world around us through a series of filters and parameters. Little do we know that the cortex is often superceded by the amygdila. How lofty have we grown to realize that we consist only of thinking things. That part is only one piece of the whole. We consist of a vast network of interacting parts and the only entity behind the steering wheel is of course DNA. When we place a parenthesis around something and upgrade to the meta we are no longer experiencing and only talking about what is to be experienced.
For example: mathematics: doing math
(mathematics): talking about mathematics
((mathematics)): talking about talking about other ideas and postulating wrt to talking about mathematics
(....((mathematics))...): describing the process of what is metamath given a finite number of abstractions
And here where's the fucked up part comes in: talking about how to define a meta process or meta structure inherently becomes meta in itself.
But now let's get a little pragmatic here.
Purpose for/of abstraction: game playing, and intellectual masturbation (perhaps).
I mean some people like to work out in the gym and keep their body toned, and if you do keep the process up long enough you may even become "ripped" in time. (wrt to this subject I'm really just talking about antlers)
So essentially, the game playing is another way to move things with your mind rewarded positively by the amygdila.
In conclusion: I'm really just dancing a round an underlying idea which I believe is better stated implicitly for the time being.
So where is the origin?
An appendix:
[r]eality is what ever we believe to be true. That is, we have a set of unknowns to every condition we can postulate, its up to us to use the axiom of choice and pick an element out of the unknown to see how far the rabbit hole goes.