ONT Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| Well, I've been waiting, I was sure
| we'd meet between the trains we're waiting for
| I think it's time to board another
| Please understand, I never had a secret chart
| to get me to the heart of this
| or any other matter
|
| Leonard Cohen, "The Stranger Song"
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Howard, Stan, & All,
I would like to try and bring together a few of the threads
that are threatening to unravel here, because I think that
there are several important connections that are yet to
be made among them, at least, in a fully explicit way.
For instance, I see a connection between this bandying about of isms
that Stan and I have been carrying on for a while now and the number
of misunderstandings about conceptual, formal, and logical analysis
that Howard and I are constantly running up against.
The strange thing is that, behind all the fuss and the fuzz about isms,
in particular, empirisicm versus rationalism, just to name one of the
bigger lose-lose battles among them, I believe that we all share an
interest in integrating the diverse one-eyed views of the universe
into a more stereoscopic perspective on the cosmos.
As a person who has been kicked around each and every one of these mental blocks
several times in one lifetime already, I have frequently, all too frequently for
my taste, had the experience of starting out on a problem from the standpoint of
where I happened to be anchoring the skiff of my transient POV at the time, say,
in the quay of "formally intensional proof-theoreticism" (FIPT) that all the
world knows on more familiar terms as "glasperlenspielism", only to discover
as I persisted on the problem, heedless of where my dinghy an sich might be
drifting, that I had gradually become an apostate to my former faith and
a born-again convert to the opposite point of view, in this case, say,
"materially extensional model-pragmaticism" (MEMP). After this sort
of thing has happened to you umpteen times in every direction that
you set out to "cover the earth", you begin to get the nagging
sense that maybe the space you're exploring is non-orientable
with respect to all of these ismaelic coordinate systems, and
so you, or at least, I, who lives to tell the tale, begin to
entertain the notion of just palin abandoning the notion
that they ismatisms ever dissect the space in question,
no matter how far we may try to draw each ism@ism out.
Now, all of us here are supposed to be sensitive to the
themes of complementarity and relativity that developed
as physics become a "reciprocant observational science",
and so I do not quite understand why I should even have
to trouble anyone hereabouts to mention this posability.
Somewhere along the line between my readings
of Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, Shrödinger, Bohm,
and that whole crew, it got impressed rather
deeply on one of my younger selves that there
is a complementarity or a trade-off between
the causal and spacetime pictures of things,
and I know there have been 2 or 3 reactions
and counter-reformations against the Danes
since then, but I still see the wisdom of
considering the off-chance of irreducible
exchange relations whenever we find our
wits being tangled by some perpetually
perennial and recalcitrant problem of
our former and formative philosophies.
It is precisely because I care about achieving basic conceptual frameworks
in which the many-splintered facets of reality can be redintegrated into
sensible and intelligible perspectives on the world as a holos that I
find the standpoints of most dedicated isms to form such annoying
and frustrating obstructions to this integration. I understand
that most isms are born out of enthusaism for a special aspect
of the cosmos, and I truly enjoy the "Hey, looky here!" phase
of their early developments, but if you look at what happens
after that, in real historical terms, it becomes clear that
all of the typical examples of "mature" isms, to wit, those
that attain the age and reach the stage of becoming aware of
themselves as isms, explicitly formalize their platoforms as
built on the planck that all opposing isms are invalid. And
isms like that cannot be re-fused into any kind of glass that
will allow us to see, much less refract the diversity of things.
Q. How do you sharpen the automic axe?
A. With a Möbius strop.
Enough for a start,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Incidental Musement:
http://www.sherwin-williams.com/
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤