"For immanent criticism, the successful work is 'not one which resolves objective contridictions in a spurious harmony, but one which expresses the idea of harmony negatively by embodying the contridictions, pure and uncompromised, in its inner-most structure.'" p18
Is there a difference between art which points out contridictions that exist in a harmonious reality and art that points out contridictions from an inharmonious worldview. Yes. I think one of them utilizes irony. If that one is the former, that makes the latter as either cynical or very droll.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Definition of ideology
I'm reading the culture industry book by Adorno. They talk about a
definition of ideology as a socially necessary appearance. I'm
wondering if they mean that society/culture is set up such that people
need categories and heuristics which then operate to maintain
stability. The particularization of life(style) into types--where
people are socialized to the same cultural schema--actually keeps them
acting relatively uniformly. For example, this act is classified as
deviant, so I won't engage with it, or I will, based on what my
ideology is. If Ideology dictates behavior, controling the definitions
attached to all ideologies means you control the boundaries of
behavior; and also the ability of all people within each division to
see themselves holistically.
definition of ideology as a socially necessary appearance. I'm
wondering if they mean that society/culture is set up such that people
need categories and heuristics which then operate to maintain
stability. The particularization of life(style) into types--where
people are socialized to the same cultural schema--actually keeps them
acting relatively uniformly. For example, this act is classified as
deviant, so I won't engage with it, or I will, based on what my
ideology is. If Ideology dictates behavior, controling the definitions
attached to all ideologies means you control the boundaries of
behavior; and also the ability of all people within each division to
see themselves holistically.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sensors
Sensors
The app should be judging the distance to your destination and letting
you know when the next bus is coming. It factors your eta by an
average of your usual pace and matches that with the info on the bus.
Don't hurry, you still have ten minutes. Stay outside.
The app should be judging the distance to your destination and letting
you know when the next bus is coming. It factors your eta by an
average of your usual pace and matches that with the info on the bus.
Don't hurry, you still have ten minutes. Stay outside.
The program stays silent for a week while it develops a baseline of
data. Then it starts anticipating your actions based on past behavior
and gradually narrows down to taste.
Thesis possibility
Thesis possibility
What are the effects of the dependence of academia on the printed word?
What are the effects of the dependence of academia on the printed word?
Mutable texts:
What does it mean that a paper can be updated? Investigate the effects
of updating on blogs. Does the mutability of an idea over time change
how we think about the idea? Compare this to cognitive, psychological,
and philisophical changes from oral to literate culture. Memory
Zeno's arrow:
Investigate the importance of the transition state. What is the
significance of the phase transition in science? What can we gain from
representing data in motion? What limitations are internalized when
researchers limit themselves to snapshot windows of data?
Visibility:
Why is human rationality so wrapped up in sight? Doubting Thomas is a
well-known folk personality.
Media is the message:
What was McLuhan talking about? How do media properties shape our
thinking? If they do shape our thinking, why can't we invent a medium
that would engender the type of society we would like to see? What
would that look like?
Limits of paradigms:
How do the limitations of our medium manifest into our epistimology?
What if we design a limitless paradigm? One that would be designed to
give people the tools to check it for false limits and rapidly
assimilate new ideas.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
When all you have is a hammer, all problem look like a nail.
I just read this article at readwriteweb today. This is the type of communication data analysis and visualization that I would love to go back to graduate school to do. The use of dynamic visualizations which strip data out of static charts and graphs and the way it will change the patterns in which we think are the future.
The dependency of human reason on the faculty of sight is fundamental. This dependency is acknowledged in the development of graphs in the first place. What these new visualization tools (and, importantly, their creative application toward data) bring to this old system is a better connection with the interdependencies of time/space and data.
As we discussed over the weekend, the limitations of our research tools over time can prejudice what is known, knowable, or, most devastatingly, what is worth knowing. Because, for better or for worse, academics have been judged on their publications, research that did not translate to the print medium was simply irrelevant. If you can't get it published, it can't help you, so move on.
As McLuhan suggests, it is the medium of expression that dictates the content of the expression (and the epistemological limits of the thought behind the expression). In this case, the static nature of printed publications creates a snapshot mindset. It over-weights the value of an event description at a point in time. If a researcher discovers information that changes their perspective on something they wrote, they do not rewrite or update the existing work, they leave it intact and create another work over the top of it.
This static limitation of print has also affected our understanding of events as depicted in charts and graphs. Since the printed text can not accurately display transition states, researchers were forced to represent them instead as moments in time. This sacrifices part of what is knowable to what is representable and it engenders, over time, a false sense of completeness to the research which is presented.
The philosopher Zeno (500 BCE-ish) famously denied the existence of motion by demonstrating that as an arrow is actually continually at rest if its flight is viewed as individual moments, because in each of these moments, the arrow remains unchanged in it's dimensions in space. This research approach may give us plenty of useful information about the arrow such as the type of tip, the size, and general construction, but it denies access to crucial pieces of information about the arrow--namely where it came from and to whom is it headed.
With regard to the arrow, we can easily derride Zeno's logic as too narrowly focused to be useful. Unfortunately, the utility of this same approach applied to academic research which is chained to the static medium is much harder to dislodge.
The availability of computers to build dynamic data simulations coupled with a mutable medium like the internet represents a new paradigm in research. In the same way that the old system definied the limits of academic thought, this new system could open the way for much broader mindset which has access to tools that can model the world in terms that are truer to the way it functions.
But to gain this freedom, researchers will have to access these new tools. Unfortunately, academics are slow to change; in part because the university system is structured such that each new product is largely a copy of a master stored in their tenured faculty (who was, in turn, a copy of another master). These copies are made (warts and all) and inserted back into the machine to mint "new" copies of their own.
The problem is finding academics who can speak the new languages. When i read articles like the one linked here, I feel like there may be a place in academia for me. (yeah yeah, now i just have to finish my thesis).
Anyway, if you made it this far in my rant. I thank you for participating. Expression is an important part of the thought process and it is helpful to me to have a destination to drive the process.
now get back to work! :)
rc
The dependency of human reason on the faculty of sight is fundamental. This dependency is acknowledged in the development of graphs in the first place. What these new visualization tools (and, importantly, their creative application toward data) bring to this old system is a better connection with the interdependencies of time/space and data.
As we discussed over the weekend, the limitations of our research tools over time can prejudice what is known, knowable, or, most devastatingly, what is worth knowing. Because, for better or for worse, academics have been judged on their publications, research that did not translate to the print medium was simply irrelevant. If you can't get it published, it can't help you, so move on.
As McLuhan suggests, it is the medium of expression that dictates the content of the expression (and the epistemological limits of the thought behind the expression). In this case, the static nature of printed publications creates a snapshot mindset. It over-weights the value of an event description at a point in time. If a researcher discovers information that changes their perspective on something they wrote, they do not rewrite or update the existing work, they leave it intact and create another work over the top of it.
This static limitation of print has also affected our understanding of events as depicted in charts and graphs. Since the printed text can not accurately display transition states, researchers were forced to represent them instead as moments in time. This sacrifices part of what is knowable to what is representable and it engenders, over time, a false sense of completeness to the research which is presented.
The philosopher Zeno (500 BCE-ish) famously denied the existence of motion by demonstrating that as an arrow is actually continually at rest if its flight is viewed as individual moments, because in each of these moments, the arrow remains unchanged in it's dimensions in space. This research approach may give us plenty of useful information about the arrow such as the type of tip, the size, and general construction, but it denies access to crucial pieces of information about the arrow--namely where it came from and to whom is it headed.
With regard to the arrow, we can easily derride Zeno's logic as too narrowly focused to be useful. Unfortunately, the utility of this same approach applied to academic research which is chained to the static medium is much harder to dislodge.
The availability of computers to build dynamic data simulations coupled with a mutable medium like the internet represents a new paradigm in research. In the same way that the old system definied the limits of academic thought, this new system could open the way for much broader mindset which has access to tools that can model the world in terms that are truer to the way it functions.
But to gain this freedom, researchers will have to access these new tools. Unfortunately, academics are slow to change; in part because the university system is structured such that each new product is largely a copy of a master stored in their tenured faculty (who was, in turn, a copy of another master). These copies are made (warts and all) and inserted back into the machine to mint "new" copies of their own.
The problem is finding academics who can speak the new languages. When i read articles like the one linked here, I feel like there may be a place in academia for me. (yeah yeah, now i just have to finish my thesis).
Anyway, if you made it this far in my rant. I thank you for participating. Expression is an important part of the thought process and it is helpful to me to have a destination to drive the process.
now get back to work! :)
rc
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Critical Theory
"There [Adorno] states that both high art as well as industrially produced consumer art 'bear the stigmata of capitalism, both contain elements of change (but never, of course, the middle between Schoenberg and the American film). Both are torn halves of an integral freedom, to which, however, they do not add up.'" - The Culture Industry (Introduction)
When I read this, I think about darwin and the challenges to the theory of evolution. The flat-earther argument goes, complex systems can not evolve because that would mean that every step in the transition of an organism from simple to complex would have to be the fittest. I wonder about the absence of this middle ground art which synthesizes the two extremes and see where maybe this principle that is proven misguided in evolution, may actually be valid.
At it's face, it seems to be such that the middle ground art would not be as palatable to audiences because those preferents at each extreme may not have the requisite exposure to the other to appreciate the referencing statement. Therefore, it would follow (from darwin!) that this middle art would not find an audience and would whither from neglect.
However, as with the theory of evolution, this application of the transitional state problem does not account for significant factors which offer counter solutions. Namely, that the statement assumes a pre-existing predilection for high or industrial culture. If this is true, then people seek out what is most gratifying and ignore the rest. The assumption that people make reasoned decisions (even to the extent that of choosing based on their own tastes) of culture is extremely suspect.
The idea that cultural creation and preferences exist in an objective framework is false in that, the mechanisms we construct to create these judgments are compromised because they themselves are children of that system they seek to evaluate (appreciate). Therefore, the statement that there is the culture that we choose by virtue of the fact that what thrives will multiply is based on the assumption that we choose culture rather than settling for some of the culture that there is.
It is absurd to suggest that we choose some culture and then it is created for us. More likely, people within a system decide (guess) what will be interesting to an audience (the characteristics they seek to use to base their analysis on will impact the final product also) and put it out there for consumption. The consumer waits at the end of the tube (literally) for whatever is going to plop out next onto the livingroom floor. They then can vote for it or change the channel.
In this incremental way they are building their culture in the same dyadic way that your eye doctor figures out your prescription. "Ok now, which image is clearer? Is it this one? or this one?" This might be an efficient way to make a measurement, but it is not an efficient way to make a decision. The use of this method in the decision making process will inevitably lead the judgment down one path or another, but a path (linear) none the less. All roads lead to somewhere, but that's not always where you need to be headed.
gotta run.
When I read this, I think about darwin and the challenges to the theory of evolution. The flat-earther argument goes, complex systems can not evolve because that would mean that every step in the transition of an organism from simple to complex would have to be the fittest. I wonder about the absence of this middle ground art which synthesizes the two extremes and see where maybe this principle that is proven misguided in evolution, may actually be valid.
At it's face, it seems to be such that the middle ground art would not be as palatable to audiences because those preferents at each extreme may not have the requisite exposure to the other to appreciate the referencing statement. Therefore, it would follow (from darwin!) that this middle art would not find an audience and would whither from neglect.
However, as with the theory of evolution, this application of the transitional state problem does not account for significant factors which offer counter solutions. Namely, that the statement assumes a pre-existing predilection for high or industrial culture. If this is true, then people seek out what is most gratifying and ignore the rest. The assumption that people make reasoned decisions (even to the extent that of choosing based on their own tastes) of culture is extremely suspect.
The idea that cultural creation and preferences exist in an objective framework is false in that, the mechanisms we construct to create these judgments are compromised because they themselves are children of that system they seek to evaluate (appreciate). Therefore, the statement that there is the culture that we choose by virtue of the fact that what thrives will multiply is based on the assumption that we choose culture rather than settling for some of the culture that there is.
It is absurd to suggest that we choose some culture and then it is created for us. More likely, people within a system decide (guess) what will be interesting to an audience (the characteristics they seek to use to base their analysis on will impact the final product also) and put it out there for consumption. The consumer waits at the end of the tube (literally) for whatever is going to plop out next onto the livingroom floor. They then can vote for it or change the channel.
In this incremental way they are building their culture in the same dyadic way that your eye doctor figures out your prescription. "Ok now, which image is clearer? Is it this one? or this one?" This might be an efficient way to make a measurement, but it is not an efficient way to make a decision. The use of this method in the decision making process will inevitably lead the judgment down one path or another, but a path (linear) none the less. All roads lead to somewhere, but that's not always where you need to be headed.
gotta run.
Darwin
"We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds--the booby and the noddy. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geological hammer." --Darwin.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Facebooking Policeman
Here's is a conversation between myself and my cousin that happened on facebook.
Cameron C. Cleland is tired and wishing I was out of uniform enjoying the beautiful weather.
Holly Yardley Cleland at 8:18pm May 16
Me too!! Sorry honey, I love you and thank you for all the work you do! At the same time we miss you! :)
Rich Cleland at 11:04pm May 16
wait. are you facebooking at work?
Holly Yardley Cleland at 5:11am May 17
Yea he has one of those fancy new fang-dangled Iphones, so he can facebook all day!
Cameron C. Cleland at 4:13pm May 18
Rich I only do it during my authorized breaks... I think!
Rich Cleland at 4:28pm May 18
Wait. I'm confused about what you say you're doing on your authorized breaks. Is that when you facebook? or think?
:P
Holly Yardley Cleland at 5:18am May 19
Thats awesome!
Cameron C. Cleland is tired and wishing I was out of uniform enjoying the beautiful weather.
Holly Yardley Cleland at 8:18pm May 16
Me too!! Sorry honey, I love you and thank you for all the work you do! At the same time we miss you! :)
Rich Cleland at 11:04pm May 16
wait. are you facebooking at work?
Holly Yardley Cleland at 5:11am May 17
Yea he has one of those fancy new fang-dangled Iphones, so he can facebook all day!
Cameron C. Cleland at 4:13pm May 18
Rich I only do it during my authorized breaks... I think!
Rich Cleland at 4:28pm May 18
Wait. I'm confused about what you say you're doing on your authorized breaks. Is that when you facebook? or think?
:P
Holly Yardley Cleland at 5:18am May 19
Thats awesome!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Operatives Second: Edwards staff has "doomsday strategy" to bring him down if he got close to nomination.
Dhavan Shah Dems First, Operatives Second: Edwards staff has "doomsday strategy" to bring him down if he got close to nomination. http://ping.fm/IF4a0
10:57am · via Ping.fm ·
Rich Cleland at 2:29pm May 10
And accomplish what by keeping him in the race?
Dhavan Shah at 2:31pm May 10
No, to knock him out of the race and save the party and election for Hillary or Obama, knowing the affair information would leak sooner or later.
Rich Cleland at 2:47pm May 10
right. but what did they accomplish by keeping him IN the race? Is this supposed to be some kind of veneration for "Democrats" who enacted a secret policy that kept the truth from public (read: their donors) which, of course, ensured that the public would continue sending in the checks that paid their salaries?
I suppose we can take solace in knowing that ours is a party that, in the absence of any other option, can be counted on to do the right thing. hurray.
Dhavan Shah at 2:51pm May 10
Good points, Rich. There policy was self serving in one respect, though honorable in another. They did not want to sell him out, even though they knew the scrutiny of a general election could undermine the party, unless they absolutely had to. Yes, you are right that they took money from donors (and paid some of it to his mistress) but their professional positions were secondary to their political ideology in the larger calculation
Rich Cleland at 3:24pm May 10
I think there were plenty of ways to get Edwards out of the race without bringing him down on this scandal. For example, he could have been persuaded to forgo his aspirations for the sake of his wife.
I cant see how highly they esteemed their professional positions in a campaign they deemed safely unwinnable already in January and February of the election year.
I'm not trying to just be contrary on this, many aspects of this meme are aggressively bad. Chief among them is the idea that these operatives saw the harm to the Democrats in terms of a the potential for a strategically indefensible national candidacy rather than in supporting a man for the presidency who lacks enough character to remain faithful to his wife. It's not just fidelity to commitments that's important, but also because screwing around under such intense scrutiny is so phenomenally stupid and indicative of a near zero threshold for selling out your goals for a little self-gratifying ego-pumping.
10:57am · via Ping.fm ·
Rich Cleland at 2:29pm May 10
And accomplish what by keeping him in the race?
Dhavan Shah at 2:31pm May 10
No, to knock him out of the race and save the party and election for Hillary or Obama, knowing the affair information would leak sooner or later.
Rich Cleland at 2:47pm May 10
right. but what did they accomplish by keeping him IN the race? Is this supposed to be some kind of veneration for "Democrats" who enacted a secret policy that kept the truth from public (read: their donors) which, of course, ensured that the public would continue sending in the checks that paid their salaries?
I suppose we can take solace in knowing that ours is a party that, in the absence of any other option, can be counted on to do the right thing. hurray.
Dhavan Shah at 2:51pm May 10
Good points, Rich. There policy was self serving in one respect, though honorable in another. They did not want to sell him out, even though they knew the scrutiny of a general election could undermine the party, unless they absolutely had to. Yes, you are right that they took money from donors (and paid some of it to his mistress) but their professional positions were secondary to their political ideology in the larger calculation
Rich Cleland at 3:24pm May 10
I think there were plenty of ways to get Edwards out of the race without bringing him down on this scandal. For example, he could have been persuaded to forgo his aspirations for the sake of his wife.
I cant see how highly they esteemed their professional positions in a campaign they deemed safely unwinnable already in January and February of the election year.
I'm not trying to just be contrary on this, many aspects of this meme are aggressively bad. Chief among them is the idea that these operatives saw the harm to the Democrats in terms of a the potential for a strategically indefensible national candidacy rather than in supporting a man for the presidency who lacks enough character to remain faithful to his wife. It's not just fidelity to commitments that's important, but also because screwing around under such intense scrutiny is so phenomenally stupid and indicative of a near zero threshold for selling out your goals for a little self-gratifying ego-pumping.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Fuck the sandbags...
At the start of a Senate Finance Committee hearing on health care reform a protester shouted questions at committee members as they tried to begin their business....
Rich Cleland: Sen Baucus (D-MT) wants us to know that he respects all views on the health-care debate, but, unless the protests from these people who want single-payer models included in the discussion cease, his committee won't be able to hear from the 16 experts he assembled to inform it on health care reform options (none of whom advocate single-payer).
Clearly he wants to keep "single-payer options in mind" and not at the table.
That Iowan stalwart of democracy, Chuck Grassley, asks, "Isn't there some place they can watch it on television?" Baucus says, to laughter all around, "We need more police."
Fuck the police, we need more chairs!
Court Cleland: ok, that's uncalled for!!!
Rich Cleland: Yes. Very likely. Though, in my defense it was not meant to be taken literally. Take, for example, the wife who comes home to find her husband frantically filling sandbags. When she asks him what happened, he says, "It's terrible! See the bathroom is flooding and I have to keep piling up these sandbags so the rest of the house doesn't flood." Disgusted, she pushes past him and says, "Fuck the sandbags, turn off the faucet!"
It's not about cops, it's about Senators who refuse to address the problem and instead have to try and manage the symptoms. If they would host an honest discussion that truly included a diverse opinion set, not only would they have more data to inform their decision but they wouldn't force a confrontation between citizens and law enforcement. That type of interaction is not the kind of relations we want to foster between those two groups. Nobody wins there.
By the way, I assume it was "police" you had a problem with and not "fuck."
Court Cleland: WOW, I was just giving you a hard time. I agree with you by the way (and about F#Ck the sandbags,too). : )
Rich Cleland: well...i thought so (especially with the three !!! at the end), but i wanted to be sure. :) plus, it gave me a reason to come up with an appropriate analogy.
Rich Cleland: Sen Baucus (D-MT) wants us to know that he respects all views on the health-care debate, but, unless the protests from these people who want single-payer models included in the discussion cease, his committee won't be able to hear from the 16 experts he assembled to inform it on health care reform options (none of whom advocate single-payer).
Clearly he wants to keep "single-payer options in mind" and not at the table.
That Iowan stalwart of democracy, Chuck Grassley, asks, "Isn't there some place they can watch it on television?" Baucus says, to laughter all around, "We need more police."
Fuck the police, we need more chairs!
Court Cleland: ok, that's uncalled for!!!
Rich Cleland: Yes. Very likely. Though, in my defense it was not meant to be taken literally. Take, for example, the wife who comes home to find her husband frantically filling sandbags. When she asks him what happened, he says, "It's terrible! See the bathroom is flooding and I have to keep piling up these sandbags so the rest of the house doesn't flood." Disgusted, she pushes past him and says, "Fuck the sandbags, turn off the faucet!"
It's not about cops, it's about Senators who refuse to address the problem and instead have to try and manage the symptoms. If they would host an honest discussion that truly included a diverse opinion set, not only would they have more data to inform their decision but they wouldn't force a confrontation between citizens and law enforcement. That type of interaction is not the kind of relations we want to foster between those two groups. Nobody wins there.
By the way, I assume it was "police" you had a problem with and not "fuck."
Court Cleland: WOW, I was just giving you a hard time. I agree with you by the way (and about F#Ck the sandbags,too). : )
Rich Cleland: well...i thought so (especially with the three !!! at the end), but i wanted to be sure. :) plus, it gave me a reason to come up with an appropriate analogy.
Re: Amazon Kindle DX: 9.7-inch screen and $489
oh yeah. it's so tiny at the bottom.
I think the DX is going to be a bust. Partially because the promotion seems to be unnecessarily limiting. Saying the new kindle is for textbooks and newspapers also says, hey, non-students, forget this expensive cousin, it's not for you. that seems counter-intuitive in an environment where technologies are consolidating on platforms (like the iPhone. Is it a phone? yes, and a web browser, game platform, blah blah blah). How much technology am I supposed to carry around with me? And wait, it's even bigger?
I like the new feature sets and the display seems to be an improvement, but now i have to have to carry my phone, my kindle, my laptop, and my kindle dx for textbooks and newspapers (with a larger screen to accommodate advertising?!). no thanks.
Add to the lunacy this little tidbit about Murdoch looking to generate cash and views for his media products by making yet another handheld device which channels just its content (WSJ, Times of London, and *gasp* the New York Post) and suddenly my bag is bursting with expensive, specialized devices? No thanks. I'd much rather do what millions of years of evolution say my species is good at and just adapt--in this case to the limitations inherent in universal devices. At least until I can get an implant that puts the images into my optic nerve.
I think the DX is going to be a bust. Partially because the promotion seems to be unnecessarily limiting. Saying the new kindle is for textbooks and newspapers also says, hey, non-students, forget this expensive cousin, it's not for you. that seems counter-intuitive in an environment where technologies are consolidating on platforms (like the iPhone. Is it a phone? yes, and a web browser, game platform, blah blah blah). How much technology am I supposed to carry around with me? And wait, it's even bigger?
I like the new feature sets and the display seems to be an improvement, but now i have to have to carry my phone, my kindle, my laptop, and my kindle dx for textbooks and newspapers (with a larger screen to accommodate advertising?!). no thanks.
Add to the lunacy this little tidbit about Murdoch looking to generate cash and views for his media products by making yet another handheld device which channels just its content (WSJ, Times of London, and *gasp* the New York Post) and suddenly my bag is bursting with expensive, specialized devices? No thanks. I'd much rather do what millions of years of evolution say my species is good at and just adapt--in this case to the limitations inherent in universal devices. At least until I can get an implant that puts the images into my optic nerve.
From: "spaceman@fiolink.com" <spaceman@fiolink.com>
To: Rich Cleland <rcatuw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 8:29:18 AM
Subject: RE: Amazon Kindle DX: 9.7-inch screen and $489
It still has a keyboard.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Rich Cleland" <rcatuw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 8:04am
To: "Mike LaVigne" <spaceman@fiolink.com>
Subject: Amazon Kindle DX: 9.7-inch screen and $489
They ditched the keyboard too.
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/05/06/amazon-kindle-dx-97-inch-screen-and-489/
Creation is a function of desire to produce something
Whether the product is art or artifact, program or process, the necessary element for the producer is a drive to create something. Without the joy of making, there is only work.
Reason is a sense
The problem with early philosophy is that, while they anticipated the
falsabilty of the senses, they elevated reason as an unerring way to
devise truth. This is evident in the ethics of the sophists as well as
the Socratan schools of thought.
falsabilty of the senses, they elevated reason as an unerring way to
devise truth. This is evident in the ethics of the sophists as well as
the Socratan schools of thought.
But it should be evident that reason is often as equally fallable as
false perception through the senses, not for the least of reasons but
that reasoned conclusions are often tainted by physical perceptions.
Therefore it is more properly conceived as a sense itself. This sixth
of the senses is an equal part of the perceptional system. Peceived
taste is affected by smell. Sight can be altered by an accompanying
sound. And so too, reason is impacted by all it's five cousins.
Once this conclusion is reached, we are better capable of reigning in
the conjectures of reason and placing it squarely within the bounds of
the healthy skepticism to which an honest person applies to all
perceptional instruments.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
A program that consists of a chain of objects. Every time a new object is added to the chain, it is placed on both ends of a the chain. Each object then begins to sort itself down the chain until it finds the right spot and is joined by its twin. Along the way it picks up a reference to each other object that shares a related characteristic. The twin objects then merge into one, combining their object collections. That way each object found already stores the entire chain that is like it. Find one, link to all.
A program that consists of a chain of objects. Every time a new object
is added to the chain, it is placed on both ends of a the chain. Each
object then begins to sort itself down the chain until it finds the
right spot and is joined by its twin. Along the way it picks up a
reference to each other object that shares a related characteristic.
The twin objects then merge into one, combining their object
collections. That way each object found already stores the entire
chain that is like it. Find one, link to all.
is added to the chain, it is placed on both ends of a the chain. Each
object then begins to sort itself down the chain until it finds the
right spot and is joined by its twin. Along the way it picks up a
reference to each other object that shares a related characteristic.
The twin objects then merge into one, combining their object
collections. That way each object found already stores the entire
chain that is like it. Find one, link to all.
Monday, May 4, 2009
A man's character is his fate.
A man's character is his fate.
- hereclitus
...and a civilization's fate in the aggregate.
- hereclitus
...and a civilization's fate in the aggregate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)