On Rules and Advice

Day 32

My preference for advice over rules is not an accident, but arises out of my system. Rules are definite things which state something certain. A rule is something that should not or cannot be broken. This can be something like thou shall not kill, I am thirteen years old, or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Rules are too rigid for the world we live in and there can always be a point where they fail, or a way in which they can be misinterpreted to allow for something to happen which breaks that rule. In short rules are, quite literally, made to be broken. The point of making a rule is to have a bulwark against outer chaos, to attempt to understand the world or to shape and demand the world stay within certain boundaries and be a certain way. Advice, in contrast, is more gentle. Advice is by its nature something that can be followed or not, that is never quite a truism immemorial but is only a kind of wisdom.

Since a rule is a thing, a rule is also a gem in the world. As a gem in the world, it is part of the world and connected to all things. By the facts of a gem and a world, there is always at least one thign that we do not know in the world, and one unknown thing that we do not know which is at the heart of the gem. So, a rule always has an unknown aspect – we think that it might be possible for a rule to be broken. For most moral rules this is obvious – we can choose to do evil. For existential rules this is also obvious – we might be mistaken about what exists. For procedural rules this is also obvious – we only presume that, for example, physical and logical rules apply everywhere and in the entire universe, but we don't know this for certain because we have not been everywhere. I am not saying that these rules are broken or are necessarily not true, but rather that we don't know that that is the case. So, relying on rules, any rules, is a tendency and not a surety. We could make a rule that we should always follow the rules – but then that rules itself is, both in a practical and theoretical sense, very weak. Practically, we try and break rules all the time, or we find ways to clarify some part of the rule or another. The length of a meter, or the exact strength of the gravitational force, have been modified over time because we learned more about them and just exactly how strong they were. The length of a meter used to be the length of a stick stuck in the ground, but is now some ratio of a wavelength of light. Theoretically, since we don't know everything about the rule that we should follow ll the rules, we also don't know which rule we should break or find out more about.

We can say a rule, or understand it. A rule can be described as a limit on possible world-states. A physical rule is a limit that says that only worlds under this limit will ever be found to be real. Any world-structure which exists outside this limit actually exists inside it, or the limit is not the actual limit of the world. A moral limit says that we can only act in a certain way. I once suggested that we could understand a moral system by an equation like x+y->c, where x is the state of the world, y is a want, which is a part of the state of the world, and c is the allowed actions. This can again be constituted as a limit on world-structures in which I exist, if I follow this moral rule. There are probably other types of rules, and I am just using these examples because they are readily available and I've talked about them before some.

If a rule is a limit, then we also know that all limits are vague. The precise world-structures under the limit get closer and closer to the limit but never quite reach it. Thus, we don't know that a certain world-structure is on the limit or even exactly how close to the limit it is. We also know that world change – and since a limit is the limit of the possible world and worlds can change, any change in a world is also a change in the limits of the world. Thus, any change in a world might result in a limit moving. This limit could move in such a way that the world-structure that was very close to but not over the limit, is now on the other side of the limit. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is possible – and the possibility for change and passing over a limit almost by accident is just the same as the possibility of an unknown changing everything when we spoke of the limit being a gem and aprt of the world. This reflects our experience that things which we knew were rock solid at one point turn out to not be rock solid at another point. Because a rule is a limit and a gem, there is always something unclear about the limit. Limits are by definition and practically vague. This reflects the idea that we are always trying to bend or to clarify each limit that we run across. In short, we don't know for certain that any limit is the actual limit of the world – we only suppose because we do know know how to know for certain.

We can also understand a rule as a certain type of logical rule in a logical field. We have understood a large brain, which may be necessary for communication, as one which contain the possibility for different types of logical fields in its general logical field. This reflects the ability of people to talk to one another and to imagine different points of view or different possibilities. A logical field is also a world and a space and a lim, just stated in different ways. To communicate between different logical fields, there has to be some way of passing information, or of exchanging gems between worlds. Yet these gems, or a logical statement, once passed over between worlds or logical fields may take a different form and have different effects or meanings. Thus, to communicate a certain level of imagination or ability of interpretation is often needed. A small mind might not be able to understand the statements of a large mind but a large mind can often understand the statements of a small ind because the large mind can imagine what the gem, which is the information, looks like in the small mind. We have an idea in our head which, we think approximates the idea in your head that you are trying to communicate. This idea, gem, or logical statement, is such that the large mind can interpret it and understand it. However, it seems obvious that we often make mistakes when we try to understand what other people are doing. This failure to understand suggests a failure of imagination or a failure of logical power. If we don't understand what somebody is saying, it is because our worlds do not have much in common or that we cannot imagine what their world seems like. That is for the issue of the existence of other minds – in a solipsistic world, failure to communication is just failure to understand ourselves, but because we ourselves stand in relation to ourselves just as other hypothetical minds stand in relation to us by the gulf od the unknown, the issue is the same. If a rule is rigid, then it can only be interpreted or true in one way – you cannot state it in other ways. If this is true, then the only way to understand a rule is to have a world which is exactly like the one in which the rule exists. If the rule is vague or can be stated in different ways, then communication suddenly becomes much easier to do. If you try to explain a rule to somebody, odds are that you will also be able to explain the rule to them using a different means. Please try – if you find a rule that you simply cannot possibly state in any other way whatsoever then the one you are using right now, then please tell me about it and I will admit that I have been wrong here. However, I have never encountered such a rule, and because the rule is to show that something cannot be done and we reject all philosophical arguments which state that something cannot happen as being fallacious unless we know absolutely everything in reality which could ever possibly effect us, to prove that a statement can only be given in one possible way you would have to have a lot more.

This means that each rule we have is actually advice. If rules are rigid and must be followed, then advice is something that is vague, unclear, often needs to be interpreted, and takes different form for different needs. Whether we understand the rule as a gem, a limit, or a part of a logical field, the rule is in each case unclear and indefinite. The rule can always be re-interpreted, or is more useful in some form or another, for some way or another, in some world oar another. It all depends, and everything is connected, and a single change or a single different way of seeing things results in a change in all things. So, if I give a rule for how things are or how things must be, then I shall not be surprised if at some point that rule fails or needs to be re-defined. I say ; give advice, believe advice, and didn't expect more than advice. Of course, this is only advice and there are ways in which my advice could be wrong. Advice is often also different than rules in that it is specific to a person. Advice always needs ot be interpreted and needs an interpreter. Advice tends to open up possibilities as rules tend to shut them down. Advice doesn't tell you who you are or what you can do, but only suggests, and by its suggestion accepts the free will that lives in the heart of you. Advice doesn't need to force you or push you down by itself – the world and the river of fate alone have enough power for that. Advice helps along the way but does not absolve you of responsibility or the need for effort in your life. Advice is always active,demands care, and pushes you toward wisdom in a way that rules do not. So, because I am giving out advice – I advise you to take everything I say with a grain of salt.