QUALIFIED ETHICAL SYSTEMS
Doxologic or Logical Doxology comes from the Greek meaning
Doxo- meaning a cultured body of beliefs or opinions.
Doxology thus relates with the concept of consumed knowledge,
specifically knowledge derived from experiences such as
traditions, gossip, and degrees of localized knowledge.
In my own variation of logical doxology, called objectivistic
doxology or just Doxologic, the objectivity of sources of belief are
brought into question, and a groundwork is attempted to be
established unifying certain classifications of words and
experiences through the use of categories.
The most basic technique is to find a statement that appears to
provide a basis of knowledge, and then to simply determine what
things about the statement determine that it is objective.
Instead of questioning the specific premises as to whether they
are true, an objective Doxologist will almost always adopt relative
absoluteness, meaning that the statement must be true in some
way. This can be taken as a first principle.
A related principle is the idea of majority absurdity, which is that
the majority of statements must be considered ridiculous, and
thus, since statements serve as the objective grounding of
another statement, even the sources of truth related to a given
statement are mostly ridiculous.
This may be compared to the experience of Robinson Crusoe on
a desert island. Normally when we hear that a president is
elected, we say 'That is wonderful, because I'm a Democrat'. Or,
'That is wonderful, because I'm a Republican'. But Robinson
Crusoe must say that 'That is ridiculous'. Not because electing
presidents is ridiculous to everyone, but because the election is
ridiculous to him personally, because he is stuck on a desert
The objective doxologist argues that the same is true for anyone
about anything, in some degree. Since most statements about a
given thing are ridiculous, those people who experience the true
meaning of words are themselves on a desert island in which all
foreign information contradicts them. The difference is that the
true meaning of words finds rationality within the absurdity.
Thus, there are a number of primary positions on doxologic:
1. Perhaps life is completely absurd, because there is no inherent
rationality to anything. This is the position taken by Camus in his
novel The Stranger.
2. Perhaps meaning is arbitrarily constructed, and there are
multiple ways of interpreting what is best or even what is most
enjoyable. This is the position taken by Sartre and the
3. Perhaps one thing is more true than another, although each
thing is the best example of itself. This is the position taken by
4. Perhaps all things are true in some way, and no truth can be
preferred over another because they are all equally true. This is
the position taken by relativists.
Ironically, in some ways relativism is the most objective view in
this sort of Ontography. By the time one thing is true, then it
requires an ethical purpose, which suggests that meaning is
individual and thus arbitrarily constructed (because multiple
people can be right, but about different things that demand the
same resources), and that returns us to the idea that all things are
absurd, and that, ironically, everything is equally true.
The position of the objective doxologist is really an objective
interpretation of the interconnection between these four areas.
Thus, it may involve the following:
1. Proof of the desirability of absurdity or some specific emotion
which is not exactly absurd --- since absurdity is too absurdly
narrow to mean anything.
2. Finding an un-evaluated meaning or affirmation within a given
experience, possibly leading to naive realism or emotivism.
3. Open-ended evaluation of objects as they correspond to their
environment, what has been called remedial studies, for example
in architecture or cultural theoretics. This involves the evaluation
of what norms and deviations mean in spite of changes in society.
4. Perhaps a rule can be defined that applies to all aspects of a
given object or society. In this case, there could be an ethical
paradigm that could be used as a rule of thumb until there is a
So, further concepts include:
Paradigm Shift: A categorical change to all of society.
Remedial Studies: Re-evaluation of the relevance of trends.
Naive Realism: Belief that things are physically as they appear.
Narrowness: Limitation of any given term in overall description.
That concludes this somewhat intermediate approach to doxology.
Beyond this level, things tend to get pretty deep, or the questions
BACK TO SYSTEMS