Objective Learning Modules:
     5 Quarters of Basic Knowledge
A concept related to the coherent curriculum approach.

                        1. HABIT AND EMOTION

                            1A. Pedagogy 101

                            A loving environment.

                            1B. Pedagogy 200
                            1. I am wowwie.
                            2. Wowwie ones are wowwie ones.
                            3. Is this wowwie?
                            4. What is most wowwie?

                            1C. Pedagogy 300
                            1. What is your theory of wowwie?
                            2. What is your explanation?


                            1. Fishing for theories.

                        2. THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.

                            2A. What is important?

                            2B. What is your favorite game?

                            2C. What are good theories?

                            2D. What is meaningful? Is there meaning in life?

                        3. SOCIETY

                            3A. Philosophers tend to be happy, because they
                              feel wisdom is justified, and wisdom feels that
                              happiness is justified.

                            3B. Forms of government are like people.
                                    1. Dictator: who is a natural leader.
                                    2. Oligarchy: who know how to share power.
                                    3. Democracy: who want to benefit everyone.
                                    4. Anarchy: without a rule, there is nothing left but nature.
                            3C. If you want to get what you want,
                             do not yell and scream or be extreme!
                             unless you have good reason.       
                            3D. Keys:
                                    1. Money.
                                    2. Stress / adrenaline.
                                    3. Prestige, persuasion.
                                    4. Special knowledge.

                        4. FUNDAMENTALS

              4A. The Dialectic.

Philosopher's have asked questions such as:

                                    Thales: What is substance?

                                    Anaximander: Is substance material?

                    Aristotle: What is appropriate knowledge? How can we know?

                    Franz Brentano: What is the appropriate substance?

                    Jean-Paul Sartre: What is existence?

                    Nathan Coppedge: What is absolute knowledge?

                    The process of asking questions and seeking answers is part of
                    the dialectic of philosophy. And, unless we have definite answers
                    we will continue to ask the same questions over and over.

                    Some problems are also practical, and it can be a matter of finding
                    real-life inventions and society-level solutions to solve problems.

              4B. Socrates' Theory of Justice
                    I have written something fairly significant on Socrates (at
                    least I think so).

                    Based on my writing, I can attempt to surmise the following:
                    1.Socrates' first view might be the premise that Justice is from
                    the gods.

                    2.Socrates would then argue that if the gods are just, so be it.

                    3.Socrates might then argue that only one of the gods is named

                    4.Socrates might then make an expostulation about how divine
                    justice might be different from justice for mortals.

                    5.At this point it explodes into a lot of different questions, like 'is
                    Justice absolute?' 'Does Justice rule over mortals?' and 'Does
                    Justice rule justly?' The conclusion leads back to answering the
                    question of whether divine justice is different than justice for

                    6.Socrates now raises the question of 'What is justice for
                    mortals?' Since we cannot know divine justice, we must concern
                    ourselves with justice of this kind.

                    7.Justice for mortals must be some relative kind of justice. It is
                    not justice at all, but an appearance of justice.

                    8.If justice is the appearance of justice then we must concern
                    ourselves with the good life, for the good life is all that has the
                    appearance of justice.

              4C.  Causal Inference

                    Traditionally, in the knowledge system derived from Aristotle,
                    who was Plato's student (Plato had learned from Socrates), there
                    are two primary ways of drawing conclusions, and both involve

                    Modus Ponens
                    If A is B, and B is C, A is C.
                    If Socrates is a man, and men are mortal, Socrates is mortal.
                    On the other hand, if Socrates is not a man,
                    Socrates might be immortal, according to the assumptions.
                    But animals and women might be mortal, too.
                    And some things aren't even alive.

                    Hypothetical Inference (another form of causal inference)
                    If C is caused by B, and B is caused by A, then C is caused by A.
                    For example, if every time I go out on Tuesday I get a  broken leg,
                    and madness is the only reason to go out on Tuesday, then madness
                    is the only reason I get a broken leg.

                    However, hypothetical inference is not always 100% true, because
                    often it is only 'likely' or 'probable' that the events will occur.
                    They are not 100% true if there is reason to believe they do not
                    always happen the way the premises describe.

                    4D. THE PROBLEM OF INCOHERENCE

            The problem with Aristotle's form of logic is that it does not and cannot
        provide absolute proof that it's conclusions will not be refuted.

            Statements of probability, and in fact any form of inference which relies
       on causal reasoning, depends on empirical (real-life) evidence from the
       world to reach its conclusions.

            How can we know absolutely that all men are mortal?

            How can we know that it will rain, or that we will break our leg?

            Oftentimes we don't know.

            And there are two major solutions:

            1. Conclude that everything happens in some degree or other,
            because at least under some interpretation, everything exists to
            some degree or other.


            2. Find a means of solving the problem of incoherence.

            In the next section we will address the question of absolute knowledge
            and explain three forms of knowledge that lie beyond 1-degree

                        5. FOUR QUARTERS OF KNOWLEDGE

   5A. 1-Degree Absolute Knowledge

  Categorical deduction is a method I invented for formulating coherent knowledge
  using an n-dimensional typology. For most purposes it only operates in four square
  categories ('quadra') lying inside a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System ('axes').

  Deductions are produced when opposite terms or labels, each being of any length,
  and occupying separate boxes, are arranged to form statements that are said to
  express all the data that could be expressed----because the words are analogous to
  everything contained by the concepts.

  The words must be opposites opposed along the diagonal, and arranged with an order
  preference given to categories A and B, which are taken to be the subject of the
  individual analysis.

  Coherent statements are then expressed as "AB:CD and AD:CB" in terms of A.
  Since B and D are switched as part of the operation of the deduction, the preference
  of B over D is actually unnecessary, although the content is not arbitrary, as it
  expresses a certain relation of judgment axis B-D with judgment axis A-C.

  Examples that don't work:

  "Bad women make good men." You may think this is sound reasoning, but it does
  not logically follow, because if man is the opposite of woman, they cannot both be
  human. The opposite of human is at least not human.

  Examples that do work:

  However, you could argue bad is the opposite of good, and the opposite of love is
  hate, now you can conclude that "bad hate makes good love." That would be
  logically sound, because it serves as a definition, and we know that it is not
  contradictory. Of course, other types of exceptions still exist which restrain the
  ultimate significance both of good and bad, and of love and hate. The statement does
  not say that it is true in every possible way, but only that it is a logically true
  definition which measures the extent of validity for that exact case, insofar as the
  words are accurate representations. If we want it to be measurably true, and not just
  logically true, then we have to assume that the opposite properties are measurable.
  And, unless they are absolute, there is no way to be certain that the statement is
  coherent. However, using similar rules, we can make more complex statements that
  are equally valid, such as: "good problems with hate produce bad solutions in love."
  Although more entities are involved, the more complex statements do not have to
  assume the entities are real or measurable to be logically valid. The deductions also
  don't depend on the idea of cause and effect, hence the concept of 'non-causal

  Consider the example of beauty versus ugliness, and a sensitive person versus a
  stoic. We don't argue that any of these entities or qualities don't exist for some
  person or other.

  Now, we can't compare opposites directly because that would create a contradiction.
  So, we compare non-opposites. There is no rule which says that stoics can't be ugly,
  or that sensitive people can't be beautiful or ugly, etc. In fact, the only thing that
  would contradict sensitivity is being stoical, and the only thing that would contradict
  beauty is ugliness. (The only exception to this is irrationality).

  Now, we are not saying that stoic and sensitivity or beauty and ugliness cannot be
  compared to other things, so there is no contradiction is selecting something specific.
  At this point there is no contradiction. We are comparing non-opposites, because that
  is not contradictory. It is a possibility, so it can express something about the world.
  Since the concepts can be defined as the only words that represent the exact same
  concept, or the identical concepts are interchangeable and have only one opposite,
  therefore the comparison of non-opposites represents the only available knowledge
  on whatever topic the terms concern. Since it is the only available knowledge, it is
  the best knowledge, and where opposite terms are exclusive of all possible
  descriptions, it is also universal knowledge. Now it follows that 'a beautiful stoic is
  ugly sensitively' and, under different conditions, 'an ugly stoic is beauty-sensitive'.
  Otherwise, the terms are not opposites, or there is opportunity to resolve the
  contradiction often resulting in a simplification of categories, or there is a paradox or

  What is potentially unique about the system is not just its sense of double relativism
  which I call relative absoluteness, but the way it works across language, and for any
  extreme concept.

  For assumptions of the system, SEE: Nathan Coppedge's answer to Can philosophy
  be axiomatized?

  However, things like 'cat and dog' or 'man and woman' don't work except in what is
  called a 'modal sense'. The modal sense is the same sense as 'this lamp post to that
  street over there' --- it may not in fact be opposite. However, terms like cat and dog
  can be lumped into categories like animal and human, and opposites can be imagined
  for them, like 'dead human' and maybe 'nativity water' for 'alien flame' or the like.
  These sorts of concepts at least set up a relationship for logical comparison
  coherently, providing a meaningful standard for correspondence that was not
  previously imaginable outside of science fiction and Alien Phenomenology.

       5B. Paroxysm

  What is a solution to a paradox?

  If it has a solution, then it was not a paradox.

  So, where did the problem come from in the first-place?

  Apparently, there are two types of paradoxes, problematic ones and un-problematic

  But problematic ones must demonstrate something, if they can't be resolved.

  Using this logic, I arrived at the idea that every paradox must also be a solution as
  well as a problem.

  The solution to any paradox can be found by combining the opposites of EVERY
  word in the best definition of the problem in the same order.

  But the solution is still a paradox, it just belongs to a different universe that we might
  think has ideal problems. In that world, solutions may be solved by problems!

           5C. Psychic Prediction

  Psychic prediction may take several basic forms.

  First I will describe the most basic types of prediction.

  First of all, the most basic type is 0-dimensional prediction. This consists of
  predicting what has already occurred, that is, predicting the types of things that have
  already happened. A second degree of this is had by predicting things that are similar
  to those things that have happened. For our purposes, this can be called simple
  generalization. If Henrick usually wants to play games, perhaps he wants to play
  games now. This is the first dimension of prediction, and it is the type that gains most
  easily by probabilistic inductions. This method is also called specialized prediction
  when it is applied to specialized modes of behavior. For example, we can predict that
  a Matisse will sell high compared to an unknown artist. We know that popular items
  in an auction sell high, whereas unpopular items might not sell at all. Therefore, there
  is an exponential relationship for example, between selling a Matisse, and selling a
  Matisse at an auction. These kinds of things can be predicted by studying the
  specific character of the modalities and events involved in a given situation.
  However, if an event is instead informal or contrived, this lends an aspect of
  unpredictability. The predictions only work when all of the prior conditions are met,
  and become less predictable with every difference from the previous cases.
  Therefore, differences can be used to predict differences, as another type of
  specialized prediction. It may help to predict trickery or confusion (‘likely
  outcomes’), rather than predicting a specific event. It should be accepted that some
  conditions and choices are arbitrary. Because we do not know if conditions will be
  met to satisfaction, we know that some events are arbitrary. If the conditions are one
  half different, then prediction requires a strong degree of formalism, however that is
  calculated. It involves, in effect, exceeding expectations, or coming across an event
  that happened just in the same way, but as if by chance. This is one reason that
  scientists have been known to require the reproduction of laboratory conditions, even
  with highly predictable phenomena. Thus, specialized predictions have some

  The next type is delineative or elaborative prediction. What it consists of is a
  generalization modified by additional imagination about the significance of the factors
  involved. This type of prediction can be called variablistic, because it often functions
  by applying a generalization to a deduction about a variable. If elephants are painted
  red, perhaps it is a sight for sore eyes, etc. One form of this is prediction through
  emergence. This is not necessarily a linear prediction because it essentially doesn’t
  predict based on existing data. Nor does it predict based on known exterior data.
  Instead, it involves a conclusion that something is missing from the data. Logical
  conclusions are drawn so that we can make major systemic conclusions about what
  the data means. The new theory appears as if from thin air. This is similar to the
  emergence of Darwinism, or the genetic explanation of reproduction. What
  determines the success of these theories is their relative importance, not necessarily
  the lack of any alternative. It is the importance of the theory----its emergence----
  which drives the prediction. (Many theories from social science involve emergent
  theories, such as socialism and capitalism. Instead of acting as a formal constraint,
  they often expand the way that the conditions function. In this case, the explanation
  is not erroneous, but instead, serves as a new rational mode of explanation).

  A third type is contingent or categorical prediction. If something is the case, then we
  can predict that the things that rely upon this first condition are modified when that
  category is modified. This form of prediction works better for predicting quality
  differences than actually-different conditions. However, if multiple qualities are
  absent, predictions can be made about the alternatives. If there is no snow, it can be
  predicted that it is not cold, or there is a shortage of water, for instance. If it is not
  cold, one can predict that it is arid or moist. If there is a shortage of water, one can
  predict that it is dry, or there is a high tolerance for water. This can also take the
  form of complex categorization. Attaching variables to a given object means that
  predicting the outcome for the main object affects the outcome of some, if not all, of
  the variables. For example, ‘if we do something extreme, the change might be
  observable. Otherwise, it is an abstract or un-measurable form of extremity. We
  must have some means of observation, or we can usually conclude that the effects
  are not extreme. Or we can adopt an irrational view’.

  A fourth type of prediction is coherent prediction. This is also called synergism or
  epiphany. The simplest form of coherent prediction occurs by the exclusion of all but
  one unlikely option. Hella spent a hot day in the desert, and she was outdoors, and
  walked several miles, time passed and she didn’t expire: she must have brought
  something to drink with her. A more complex form occurs by qualifying what it means
  to make a given combination. People who have complicit sex are always lovers.
  Therefore, if two people have sex, it might be complicit, and they might be lovers. Or,
  something is complicit between two people. If it is sex, they are lovers. This can even
  involve highly complex phenomena. For example: Joe defines himself as an editor,
  but he works as an economist. In some way he is doing economic editing. This is the
  beginning of a genuinely psychic method. Attaching judgments of fully embraced
  variables can be a meaningful way of reaching for epiphanies. For example, what
  ‘definitely IS something’ about a given thing? Then apply that condition to factors
  like responsibility, organization, and predictability. An exception to this is so-called
  ‘black swans’. In that case, one must predict the rationale which makes something a
  black swan. The rule in that case is that things are either unreasonable, reasonable,
  without purpose, or serving a prescribed function.  A method for solving black swans
  involves corroboration or defaulting. This occurs when there is no better explanation
  remaining for a given thing. Well, we know that such-and-such a creature has eyes
  based on the related species, but nothing about the creature looks exactly like eyes.
  The eyes must be these spots on its back. Otherwise its blind. Or, black swans could
  exist, as long as we know that color serves no inherent function.

  Now for more genuine psychic predictions:

  A second genuine form of psychic prediction involves using a posteriori reasoning on
  a 0-dimensional prediction. For example, if we know that some events are arbitrary,
  then we can derive that we don’t know if some conditions will be met to satisfaction.
  If we know Henrick wants to play games now, we can predict that he usually wants to
  play games. This form of prediction often involves deducing the types of statements
  that lead to a particular line of reasoning: that is, predicting a rationale. Many
  psychics are familiar with this way of phrasing deductions.

  A third form of genuine psychic prediction involves determination based on unstated
  facts. Since everyone thinks about the opposite of what they say, at least
  unconsciously, combining multiple opposite terms for terms that have been stated as
  someone’s opinion, or as the definition of a motive or interest for the person or
  organization, will give information about the genuine motivations, or else the looming
  unknowns in the life of the person or organization. For example, if someone states
  that the first thing on their mind is their motorcycle, and the second thing on their
  mind is their manhood, then you can predict that they’re concerned about meeting
  someone else on a motorcycle.

  A fourth form of genuine psychic prediction involves categorical relationships. One
  can ask or predict ‘what is someone’s usual mode of relation with the world?’ Then
  one can predict that they use that mode of relation with their perceived opposites.
  For example, an artist who expresses that the thing on his mind is cars can be
  predicted ‘not to buy a painting of a car, instead you’ll make it yourself’ (the
  concealed opposition is between the artist who makes art, and his opposite, the buyer
  of the art. The opposite of making a painting of a car is buying a painting of a car).
  Similarly, if a business expresses itself as aggressive and competitive, but you think
  they’re liars, you can predict they’ll have contradictory marketing (‘competing
  truths’, since their mode of relation is competition, and their opposite is the truth).

  A fifth form of genuine psychic prediction: take any number of factors describing a
  current event or situation you’re in, and reverse the factors that are different from
  the subject. This can be used to predict how someone is feeling, or what their core
  motivation are. For example, an artist is at a business convention. So they’re feeling
  unconventional, and they feel like making art, since that is not a different motive
  from business. Or, a philosophy society is at an art gallery. So, it thinks its popular
  art (‘society’ does not conflict with ‘gallery’), and it thinks its un-philosophical art, or
  tries to make connections between art and philosophy (‘philosophy’ is different from
  ‘art’ or it can be debated). Other conclusions might be that they think art is trying to
  commercialize philosophy, that philosophy ought to involve graphics, or to view art or
  philosophy as a socialist movement.

  Those are the eight categories of prediction that I have determined. I hope this
  writing may be considered useful to my readers on this most often unrealized subject.


  First Formula:

  Soul of the book =

  'If you [X] qualifier [subject of X and qualifier] [opp X clarified]'

  Optionally, you can add a moral:

  'The [subject of X alone] is [verb / adj. of opp qualifier]'.

  Also, optionally,

  Optional 2= '[A/the state / process from verb / adj.] of / is [property of qual. of X]'

  Note: For this second part, it may help to refer to the title which
  I will now provide, in order to find the opp qualifier before it is

  Title of book =

  Usually: '[quality of X] [opp of qualifier mentioned in the soul]'
  For perusal, or quick use: '[opp qualifier] [quality of X]'

  The easiest way to use the formula is to generate original souls
  and then find the corresponding titles by finding the most
  essential, knowledgeable quality of X and then finding the
  opposite of the qualifier introduced in the soul of the book.

  Together with the soul the title provides a basic index of the
  value of any text, and permits exponentially efficient reading.

  For example,

  Soul = 'If you die early enough you live'.
  Optional 1= 'Death is the aging process'.

  Title of book = 'Bad Archaic'
  Bad [= qual. of die] Archaic [=opp of early]

  Another example chosen more arbitrarily,

  Soul = 'If you live surely truth may die'
  Optional 1= 'The life is uncertain'.

  Title of book = 'Optimal Uncertainty'
  Optimal [=qual. of live] Uncertainty [= opp of surely]

  Second Formula:

  What naturally follows from an earlier term, sometimes in unusual ways.

  For example, "I need to pee" could be the soul of "Reigns of Fire", since
  "Reigns of Fire" might follow from "I need to pee".

  Better titles are more clever and data-intensive, but highly predictable titles
  can be used for poor-quality literature.

  At another level there is a difficulty here in predicting the bulk of the content for a
  book. In some cases it can be accumulated based on primacy, e.g. the first thing
  thought of in relation to the title becomes the soul, the second becomes its second
  soul, etc. with due attention to appropriateness to determine every time which title
  the content refers to.

  On another level it is important to choose the best title for each writing, not just a
  very good one, and this leads to a multiplicity of titles with very little content.

  Various formulas are suggested, such as a book that consists entirely of a list of
  other titles, a book that lists only the souls of other books, or a book that brings
  together the best parts of related works in a comparison. However, as a rule these
  are 'schizo-forms' of the true literature, which must in this case simply be a collection
  of all the best content that matches a title. This seems to require a degree of
  omniscience, as if one could read all the books in the Ancient Library of Alexandria,
  all translated into perfect English.

  Thus, the second method is not to be preferred, although it is the inspiration for the
  first. However, creating a program that works on this method is not impossible, if the
  correct rules are known, such as:

  1. The first soul of the book exclusively anticipates the title.
  2. The second soul is based on the first soul.
  3. Content is expanded based on souls of the book.
  4. All content in some way refers to the title, or the souls, insofar as the souls are        
  5. If the souls are not exclusive, additional content may be shared with another book.
  6. Additional content is the sole basis for extraneous organization apart from a
  shortlist of highly interesting related titles. E.g. Logos might link to Arche-Fact, and
  Arche-Fact might link to Origins.







          (c) 2016 by Nathan Larkin Coppedge but free for academic use.