Primary Sorting Algorithms

Everybody has a primary sorting algorithm.

Let me explain. The senses perceive something, and the brain then tries to recognize what it is. Then the emotions react positively or negatively.

Perception, recognition, reaction. Boom boom boom, it happens very fast. Then comes decision.

I was hiking with a friend once, and at the top of a hill, I looked down at my feet.

And at the coiled brown thing next to my right foot. (Perception)

Which looked very much like a rattlesnake I had seen in a Scout manual once. (Recognition)

Which meant I was in danger. (Reaction)

Which mean I needed to get down that hill as quickly as possible. (Decision)

My friend later told me that I had been yelling as I ran down the hill; I don't remember that part. Adrenaline does some funny things.

The primary sorting algorithm lives in the Recognition part of the decision cycle; it is based on everything you've ever taken as a fact.

When you see (perceive) a person, your brain immediately goes to work figuring out what type of person they are. For some people, the primary sort is, are they a man or a woman? For others, the sort is, are they my race, or another? For others, the sort is, are they a child or an adult? This DETERMINES how you react to them.

Some people have more esoteric primary sorts, such as, are they a cat person or a dog person? Are they a Star Trek fan or a Star Wars fan? Are they happy or negatively emoting?

Your primary sort is based on that one event in your past when you screwed up a primary identification, and something bad happened to you. In my case, I was de-pantsed by a cute girl, who had never shown any inkling of being mean to me before. (She solemnly apologized when she saw how embarassed and ashamed I was.) From then on, I primarily sorted people by whether they were going to hurt me or not. I determined this by their facial expressions, either of friendliness or of seeming guarded or mischievious. I haven't gotten over this.

Now things get tricky. There are people with screwed up genes, or screwed up hormones or glands or stuff, whose sexual characteristics are not fully male or fully female. These "intersex" individuals have a very hard time in a world that insists on a binary primary sort of male/female. (The same is true of dwarfs, little people, and short people, who are often treated like children despite being adults.)

People who are intersex inspire the same kind of "gender panic" in certain people that cross-dressers and transvestites do: "How DARE you be unrecognizable to my scheme of how the world works! How DARE you attempt to trick me into miscategorizing you!" In a civilized society, there is no reason for "gender panic" to turn into violence; however, it does too often, because not everybody who lives in civilization is civilized.

Learn Your Lessons

God teaches people lessons in life, using everything that happens to us.

However, because there are three different types of people (Physically, Logically, or Emotionally Intuitive), there are three different methods He uses to teach us.

Physically Intuitive people learn life lessons like a coal being formed into diamond. Each hard thing they learn to endure makes them harder, more able to resist the hard things of this world. "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger."

Logically Intuitive people learn life lessons like ore being purified into gold. God puts them into the furnace from time to time, and as they stop being so rigid, the impurities float to the top to be skimmed off. "If it doesn't work, don't do it."

Emotionally Intuitive people learn life lessons like a pearl being formed in an oyster. Each ugly bit of grit teaches them something beautiful about God and His plan for them. "But if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't have this testimony."

There are times when each of us experiences life lesson learning through the other methods, but I've found, as a Logically Intuitive person, that God prefers to purify me; that's just how I learn to deal with this fallen world. (I do have my pearl testimonies and my diamond resistances in some areas.)

And we will be His crown someday, to His glory as testimony for the angels who remained loyal, and against the angels who turned traitor.

The Constitution of Man

The constitution of man is the most common misconception about Triessentialism. I do not deny the existence of body, mind, and spirit, but I believe them to be less than the whole truth.

"Physical" usually refers to the particle-based body in this space-time continuum. However, "Physical" also describes any plane of existence which plays by approximately the same rules. You push something, it moves away. You pull something, it comes closer. You cut something, it is split. In the context of a Christian cosmology, the usual thinking goes like this: there is a spiritual plane of existence called Heaven, in which we will have new spiritual bodies that never need food or cleaning or anything else. Will it be made of particles of matter like this universe? I doubt it; I think it'll be much cooler. However, it will be made of some sort of matter; we won't just be thoughts and emotions swimming in a sea of other minds. Keep in mind this is usually what guys mean when they say "spirit" or "spiritual," since guys are usually physically intuitive.

So already in one category we have both body and spirit -- at least, one definition of spirit.

You also said "mind." I consider mind to be a combination of emotion and logic; at least, human minds. Logic is all about truth, structure, and reasoning. Emotion is, contrastingly, totally and completely irrational. However, emotion is all about identity, purpose, importance, and desire, which logic has nothing to do with. The classical duality, the Mind/Body Problem, is not finely enough defined. Once you split Mind into Logic and Emotion, it becomes clear why the ancients were confused.

Some consider this to be spirit, because it is completely nonphysical. (Although the brain is the container of the mind, and damage to the brain impacts the mind, the brain is no more the mind as the candle is not the flame.) However, some people consider mind to rever solely to the intellectual (logical) capacity, and not the emotions.

Now we come to spirit. Some say it is a paraphysical or pseudophysical reality. Others say it is completely the opposite of physicality. A third option, one which I am loath even to mention, equates spirit and emotion. For example, a "spirited argument" is an emotionally passionate argument. People who are nice are often said to have "a good spirit." Positive or upbeat emotions are said to be spiritual by the world, while a "spirit of devotion" is often spoken of highly in the church. And so on. This option tends to be put forward by women, because they are usually emotionally intuitive.

So in a traditional tripartate constitution of man, "Body, Mind, Spirit" refers to one or possibly two things in two ontological categories, and one or up to three things in one ontological category each. The best possible Triessentialist interpretation of "body, mind, and spirit" is to call mind logical and spirit emotional. Yet surely most people, especially Christians, would chafe at equating emotions simply with spirit. After all, emotions can be influenced with drugs, the mood of the room, or a lack of sleep. Surely that does not imply that if a person dies while in a grumpy mood, they will go to Hell.

There must be a better constitution of man.

I suggest a sevenfold constitution of man. Primarily, the body, intellect, and emotions. Secondarily, the instinctual, philosophical, and innovative capacities. Thirdly, the moral capacity. Everything except philosophy requires a body. Everything except innovation requires emotional capacity. Everything except instinct requires some level of logic. They are not separable; any being without part of each of these would not be human.

That being said, where in this scheme is there room for the spiritual? What about the as-yet unmentioned "soul"?

In Triessentialism, I consider the moral capacity of man to be his soul, and "spirit" to refer either to a paraphysical plane of existence, or the emotional capacity. (I hate ambiguity, but since the words are already defined by the world at large, this level of clarification is the tightest possible.)

Triessentialism in the Job Market

Physically intuitive people feel most comfortable in jobs of a physical, scientific, moral, or animal nature. These include construction, physics, robotics, chemistry, industry, medicine, law, law enforcement, politics, leadership, etc. Since most men are physically intuitive, most men will be found in such jobs.

Emotionally intuitive people feel most comfortable in jobs of an emotional, philosophical, moral, or animal nature. These include counseling, art, charity, religion, philosophy, politics, cheerleading, modelling, medicine, caretaking, justice, law, etc. Since most women are emotionally intuitive, most women will be found in such jobs.

Logically intuitive people feel most comfortable in jobs of a logical, scientific, philosophical, or moral nature. These include computer science, hard math, research, invention, philosophy, law, finance, etc. Since most people with autistic tendencies are logically intuitive, most people with Asperger's Syndrome will be found in such jobs.

If you're not in your category right now, consider that any job in your category would be more to your liking than even the best job outside your category. Take it frim me; I was in jobs that seemed to suit me, but were not in my category. Then I was given a job in a logic-related field. It's like discovering your favorite food at the age of thirty, and wondering how you never tried it before.

The Composition of Man

Back in early 2001, God gave me an answer for my philosophical questions: a systematic ontology, a set of three categories into which everything could be divided: the Physical, the Logical, and the Emotional. Everything that exists, or even can or could exist, is made up of things from these three categories.

It made sense; man has a body, a mind, and a heart. At least it made sense at the time, but the primary objection most fellow Christians have is "where does spirit fit in?"

I need to ask them, each time, "What do you mean by spirit?"

You see, spirit is a word that, in contemporary American English, can be used for many things. It can be used in a philosophical sense, a psychological sense, a moral sense, a purely emotional sense, a metaphysical sense, an abstract sense, or as relating to consciousness either of man, of animals, or both.

Soul can usually also be used in such senses.

The Triessentialist trichotomy, by contrast to the traditional trichotomy, holds at its core the multiplicative combination of the three components (Body, Mind, and Heart): the person as a moral being.

A thing of Body only (such as a rock) cannot be held accountable under law, nor can a thing of Mind only (such as a mathematical equation), nor a thing of Heart alone (such as the emotion of anger).

Nor can the combinations of two alone be held morally responsible in the same way as a human. Animals are beings of Heart and Body (their mental capacity not encompassing the logical capacity necessary for language), and if they harm a person, they are destroyed without trial. Computers likewise are things of Science (Mind and Body without Heart), and as such are tools; they are no more legally responsible for their actions than would be a hammer used to crush a skull. A being of Mind and Heart without Body would be unable to affect the physical world in any way, except possibly through communication with humans; yet we cannot hold Holden Caulfield or Nietzche's Zarasthustra legally responsible for acts committed in their names, as they are fictional characters, beings of Logic and Emotion without real substance.

The only beings we hold morally responsible are humans, the only Earthly nexus of Body, Mind, and Heart.

Thus I define moral existence to require these three characteristics, these three components. I further define this Moral nexus as the soul of a person.

The being currently made of entropy-prone matter and arranged chemically to function as if a real person will be given a better Body, one made of better stuff, without dependence on gravity, electromagnetism, time, and oxygen. I term this the spiritual body, which will house the soul when this body dies or is removed.

Spirit remains, like Love, a word I rarely use due to its ambiguity. First, I state that there exists a pseudophysical realm that is "outside" but "near" our own, in which the general concepts of the Physical still apply, such as things not occupying the same space at once, and one thing pushing on another makes it move; this is the spirit realm, in which angels and demons exist; this is the realm in which we will exist, and the matter of which our new bodies will be constructed. Second, I state that the term spirit, when not used in this manner, is generally used to describe all things emotional; I generally try to refrain from this second use, as it seems more metaphorical than real to me.

When reading the Bible, I draw no distinction between soul and spirit, since the Bible itself draws no systematic distinction, except in the works of Paul. Since he uses them systematically, I see the term soul (psuche) as equal to "psyche", the flesh-based mind OR the fallen Moral will, but "pneuma" as EITHER the pseudophysical supernatural component of Man OR the Moral Will, the nexus that is the person, which Jesus restores through salvation and the Holy Spirit renews through sanctification.

And please, if you see ANY theological flaws with this, PLEASE alert me to them at once.

Real World Applications

All this talk about philosophy is fine. However, Triessentialism (like any sufficiently utilitarian philosophy) really shines when aplied to cutting-edge problems.

Questions of intellectual property rights and laws, for example.

Matthew Skala, of the Bonobo Conspiracy webcomic for ultrageeks, has written a piercing examination of intellectual property rights, using a deceptively simple analogy.

He cuts through the intellectual wanking of Monolith, a program that "munges" (reversably merges and encodes) two files. A program that is as legal to own as a radio/tape player that can tape songs from the radio.

Monolith is designed to be a legal shield for unauthorized or unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material. It will fail at this precisely because of the reasons Skala gives.

Lawyers are masters of intellectual wanking, more so than geeks who've read too many issues of 2600.

Consider, for example, that a scratchy analog recording made with a home tape recorder is as much a copyright violation as a perfect copy made with professional sound equipment. The sound may be patchy and unlistenable in places, the song may even start cross-fading into the next song on the playlist and suddenly cut off, but if it is sold or given away, the seller and buyer are both liable. The audio tape is declared illegal, even though an audio tape is not a series of air vibrations, and a series of air vibrations is not the copyrighted material.

Now consider that digital files (an uncopyrightable series of ones and zeros) are already encoded, and as long as the process is reversable, further encoding and file-splitting does not matter legally. As long as the primary purpose of that file is to be turned back into sound when a human is present, any such file is prima facie evidence of intent to violate copyright.

How does this relate to triessentialism? It illustrates the inescapable gulf between the physical and the logical.

Any physical encoding of the intellectual property is subject to intellectual wankery.

For example, it could be argued that since the audio tape is physically different than the original record at the radio station, the one cannot be a duplicate of the other. The sound waves generated when each is played, however, are approximately identical. A bad copy of a movie, taken in a theater by cell-phone camera, is also approximately identical to the copyrighted

However, copyright law is not about sound waves, or patterns of light and color, or any other physical phenomenon. It is about the effect of those sensory inputs on the audience, and where those effects originate. If they originate at a private source, such as the mind of a musician or director or other artist, the approximate duplication of those effects are controllable by their originator.

When someone buys a ticket to a Broadway play, they seem to be renting a seat in the audience (the privilege of being in a certain place during a specific range of time), but that is secondary, as evidenced by rain checks. If the star and understudy both fall ill, that performance is cancelled, and each ticketholder is issued their choice of a refund or a rain check (a replacement ticket redeemable at a later time).

They are actually buying the privilege of the total sensory experiences and the logical and emotional effects they produce in their minds. The logical and emotional effects encoded into the physical by the intentional behavior of the actors (and the lighting and the orchestra), and unencoded from the physical by their own senses.

That is why it is called intellectual property: the word property refers not to a piece of physical personal property, but to the logical and emotional personal property, and only secondarily to the physical/mathematical encodings of those things, and only tertiarily (thirdly) to the licensing of those things.

(Both the Logical and the Emotional are herein counted as intellectual, since they are the two components of the Mind of classical Mind/Body Dualism.)

And now for some intellectual wankery of my own.

This blog post is copyrighted by me, Luke Allen, as of this day, Saturday, May 12, AD 2007. I am solely responsible for the logical concepts and emotional experiences that I have presented to you. However, those ideas are now yours. You own them, because an idea cannot be copyrighted, only my specific creative representation of them. I intend you to now have an approximate duplication of my concepts in your head, hopefully enhanced by my creative presentation of them. However, since I am an amateur, and since you are reading this for free, I have no idea how faithful that duplication is to the original in my mind. :)

I granted you the implicit license to read and link to this post, by placing it on a publicly available website. I encourage such activity. I also granted implicit license to make a copy in your mind. I hereby grant explicit license, at no cost, to archive this posting, in its entirety and with attribution, to a personal storage device, including hard drive, printout, thumb drive, etc., so that you can refresh the degradable copy in your mind. You may also share any such copy with anyone you wish. However, as copyright holder, I do ask that only short excerpts be used in forums and the such, with links back to this post. :P

Is-Ought and Fact-Value

Triessentialism answers two of Hume's most interesting dilemmas, the fact-value distinction and the is-ought problem. Both of these highlight how emotions are a differeny type of thing from either the physical reality or from logic.

Is and ought are different on a fundamental level. Is describes physical reality, the (logical) words to describe it, and possibly the (emotional) reaction to it. Ought describes only an emotion, either an Identity (at a certain time in the future, this is what will be) or an Imperative. Imperatives are the emotions behind words like "should" and "ought", as well as "want", "need", and "must". "You ought to behave!" might be restated as "I want you to behave" or "you need to behave". "I'd like to" is a cautious or polite form of "I want".

Facts and values are also fundamentally different. Facts are logical descriptions of other things, while values are the emotional equivalent. Computers, which have no emotions, cannot say whether a thing is good or bad, only whether it is true or false, accurate or flawed. Animals cannot say whether a thing is true or false, only whether it considers it a good or a bad thing.

The tricky part is that you can state a fact about an emotion, just as you can state a fact about a thing or another fact. I can state in English that those Wikipedia articles are both true and good, but I've just stated in one sentence both a theoretically verifiable fact and a subjective valuation.