Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Topics other than the magazine column.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Re: Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Postby Don Blazys » Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:42 am

All fake named posters are, at the very least, "not sure", for if they were sure, then surely, they wouldn't need to post under a burqa of anonymity with regards to their true identities! If all of you fake named phoney's were to actually face the truth, then you would all realize how pathetically insignificant your thought processes really are! So keep on living in your silly little dream worlds, you pathetic little skunks! Cantor was right, period! And my proof of Beal's Conjecture is still number one on Google... Period!
Don Blazys
Intellectual
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:54 am
Location: La Crescenta Ca.

Why did you put that post here?

Postby tvelection » Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:53 am

I considered not responding at all, but I don't understand your motive. Did you mean to put that post in this thread that I’ve sincerely worked so much on? I never hassled anyone at this site and always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I’ve used my real name many times. If you accidentally put this here instead of the thread about “Marilyn to ref your proof is futile” no problem, please delete it to an empty (one character) post and I’ll delete this.

I’ve been nothing but civil with you, we’ve never had an argument ---and this is the thanks I get?

I just want to be very clear before I post again: Was that directed at me?
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Postby robert 46 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:20 am

tvelection wrote:I considered not responding at all, but I don't understand your motive. Did you mean to put that post in this thread that I’ve sincerely worked so much on? I never hassled anyone at this site and always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I’ve used my real name many times. If you accidentally put this here instead of the thread about “Marilyn to ref your proof is futile thread” no problem, please delete it to an empty (one character) post and I’ll delete this.

I’ve been nothing but civil with you, we’ve never had an argument ---and this is the thanks I get?

I just want to be very clear before I post again: Was that directed at me?

I believe Don's abuse is directed to JeffJo and me in particular, along with everyone else on the Internet who have disagreed with his "great discoveries". Considering that Don is the most insulting person to have come to this website- there has to be one, right? What is most difficult to understand is how someone as abusive as Don would be allowed around children. Yet he has been employed as a security guard for a school- apparently for decades. Are they not aware of his abusive presence on the Internet? Perhaps this can be put into perspective when one learns that he is employed by the Catholic Church at one of their parochial schools. Perhaps the Church has an affinity for abusive people- there certainly is a history of this. If Don's behavior is programmed, which I suspect, then there likely isn't anything practical which can be done about it.


P.S. If Don deletes his post, and you delete yours, then I will delete mine. Also, if Don reposts then so will I.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2838
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Postby tvelection » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:40 am

For any readers who are new to this site or new to this “Logic . . . originality” thread:
I apologize for this unexpected digression on this page 3. This all stems from a thread in general discussion entitled “Don Blazys, inviting M. to ref. your proof is futile . . .” which I wasn't even a party to.

Robert46, I think you’re probably right about the intention of Blazys post. What I didn’t like was that if a new reader were to read the thread, seeing that I did an informal post about Cantor, my “anonymous” screen-name, and also my talk about dreams (and without them knowing of the long lasting past debate between you, Blazys, and JeffJo, in other threads) they’d reasonably assume that it was directed at me. Maybe they’d wonder why I would “cower” not at being contradicted as much as outright insulted. Thanks for clearing that up. Not to say that it’s okay if you or JeffJo are insulted as long as I’m not ---but I figure you two are, and have been, fully capable of defending yourselves when it comes to reasoning. Instead of piling on that situation I thought maybe the civil approach might make more of impression. Maybe I was too optimistic. I've decided to the best course of action is just to repost before this thread suffers further.

Blazys, I hope you don’t think I’m outraged or bitter now; it was probably a misunderstanding.

Just some advice:
You’ll be more successful pushing your ideas, whether they’re right or wrong, if you respect the opposition and allow them to say that you have it wrong. You’ll never win them over (as far as just a willingness to listen) with such harshness. Negativity breeds negativity. If someone looks at an idea of yours and says, “This makes no sense to me,” don’t let it anger you even though it may be personally frustrating. I’m not saying be artificially positive to the point of sarcasm either just be civil.

I don’t offer this advice in some patronizing “holier than thou” way, I have my own flaws, but only in hopes that you may have more satisfying exchanges with others who really don’t hate you or want to trash your theories but just wholeheartedly disagree. You may think, “Why are all these people trying to ruin my ideas?” Beyond them coming to a different conclusion based on reason and knowledge it’s mostly because they’re reacting not to your ideas but the way you lash out at them. I truly believe that you are too intelligent to take the low road, rather you are understandably disappointed when your ideas are not embraced. When you catch yourself becoming negative, wanting to tell someone off because they argued you instead of validating what you hold so dear just understand that either they honestly disagree or they don’t understand, let haters be haters, don’t become one. I really don’t think Robert46 or JeffJo ever intended to insult you, as I don’t, but they got tired of being pushed to the edge and finally returned your incessant negativity in kind ---we all have our “limits.”

You can still delete that post and I'll delete this and the one before. I'm sure Robert will do as he said, except now the only way to delete will be to leave one character or something like " . . . "
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Reposted from page 2, no.1

Postby tvelection » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:00 am

The following is experimental writing, with cosmology, epistemology, and dreaming. It's a mix of serious speculation and tongue-in-cheek "unseriousness."

Mass attraction whirlpools, cyclonic particle recyclers, celestial forgetfulness, a stir on a terrestrial spacecraft, relaxing again with a sense of overwhelming sleepiness, chaotic movements hidden in electron clouds, reformed beings simultaneously asleep and awake, advents of particles becoming more intertwined, alive, in the ever-present conserved motion of universal mass (“energy”). Transfigurations existing in ways they’re unable to imagine, undetected influences. Individuals conditioned to believe that life is participation in social structures, cannot see the arbitrary meaninglessness, creating an “identity” through these experiences, an original becoming behaviorally conditioned into a contemporary “I” of peers ---dated, cultural, reproductive, and demographic tendencies with common memorized beliefs, histories, religions, politics, locked into those expectations, no longer free.

The Earth is cremated like a cinder dandelion that's blown out into space by the sun’s seething crown. Our ashes scatter in a cosmic ocean, the night sky we used to wonder at ---that’s where we’ll be. We loved to look at the stars. Ivana Blinkovanova has left to explore nearby star systems to look for she-knows-not-what, finding her origins along the way, with a strange feeling of having been there before ---something remembered from a dream, half-awake in a dark room, seeking what it means to know through her limited perception of “reality.” How is it that the Earth is gone? Fortunately she uploaded everyone that ever lived before she left ---with a tear in her eye she kissed the doomed good-bye. In her mind she loves reliving the happiness in their lives as she travels. There must be others somewhere. She searches for a home yet will insist that she prefers deep-space-travel to sowing embryo delights in new garden worlds.

A spiral galaxy’s children have won some universal lottery ---of powerball particles, matter moving through space, rational or not, feelings or experiences not yet verbalized. Dreaming of music on a spinning biosphere, the side-car of a flying furnace. Matter and motion are necessarily affected by every subtle act, every discrete thought. We woke-up too soon, unable to move, fell back asleep in no time.

----------------------------------

Words, images, movements of sound and no common time, they had taught themselves to tame lightning, “taught” each other how to recreate life by nature’s open-source codes. When you can’t know everything, questions become more focused: What is it that you want to know and why? What will knowing it change?

They taught me and I learned that “Earth,” a somewhat arbitrary sound or text for signifying “this planet,” that Earth rotates while orbiting a star. They taught me these English words and sentences used to signify both existing and absent ideas of things ---a way to communicate through standardized definitions and usages. Words may suggest particular things by generalized categories, abstract characteristic groups, common words that may lose more particular distinctions, an “unexacting” mass production of standardized meanings. We didn’t invent these traditional, evolving, languages. We were taught to imitate them within the culture in which, by chance, we were born.

Languages, words, are learned as a child imitates their usage more than inquiring into definitions. Unlike adults who learn a second language and actually “question” the new words and become philosophical about meanings and contexts of words in combinations. We learned not to speak as much as to repeat speech. No meta-language exists because language is a construct of common/standardized meanings (unlike physical reality, noumena, and the individual’s psychology of experience, phenomena). There would have to be a name for every specific thing, no generality. That tree is XR1829352435619 and when it falls and decays that name will also be gone. There is only one, and we named each and every leaf too.

Language communicates thought, points to the ideas of things in their absence or points to their very absence, just standardized meanings created differently for different uses, generalized, with rules for combination. Through language we create intentional thoughts, knowledge, and learn of specializations far beyond one’s ability to produce his or her self, a gift and a curse, a cheat sheet. The “answers” were given before the test. In modern conceit we love to think we’d have figured-it-all out for ourselves, may mistake education for brilliance. We think we know what we were merely told. We “believe” that we know something but how do we know when we know? Two theories explain the same result. Regardless of the abstract language the situations for which it is used (to describe) may be real or fiction, describes or corresponds to things, ideas about things, and relationships between analytic ideas.

There must be matter here and empty space there, conserved mass and absence of mass. This cohesive static of mass and its effect on the motion of other mass, organized harmonic chaos of (subatomic) moving matter, also inside single-cell organisms that sense pressure from physical resistance and change course. In the very particles of our being, each stamped somehow with energy lost since their advent, the subatomic particles of atoms that were spun to the speed of light, mass uploaded with “kinetic/potential-energy,” and ejected as reformed mass radiated from a mass/energy-conserving whirlpool that deconstructs matter into fundamental particles. Cloud clusters, atonal sounds, a jostling compression in a star’s core shot outward in nova, like the effect of a book long since forgotten, the influence remains, seeing stars that are billions of light years away. Then that is reconstructed in our mind, a neural picture stimulated from incoherent dark particles that stimulate rods and cones of a distorted reality we learn to see. Meaning without language, you want to say it don’t you? The universe is on the tip of your tongue.

A Sleeper’s Assembly Line:
I was lost in a dream, walking in the street of an unknown neighborhood with a long way to go and it was getting dark. Suddenly and inexplicably, I was driving a van on that same road, a road that I remembered from another dream. I even knew there was a right turn coming-up and where it led.I sat on the black bench seat of an older van and there was no steering wheel or pedals. I noticed these discrepancies while accurately “driving” in the right lane around a curve. I could still control the van somehow if I concentrated. As I approached the turn I was nervous about how I was going to manage it. I watched the van (presumably with me inside) make the turn from a point of view above the intersection at the turn. I concentrated on turning the vehicle right while making some inexplicable physical exertions, went far wide and just barely made the turn. Then, from back inside a van again, but a more modern mini-van with bucket seats, I was still embarrassed by my poorly executed maneuver and looked straight ahead, not making eye-contact with the unhappy drivers. I drove until there was a slight curve in the road (the vehicle wouldn't turn anymore). I was able to stop the van and get out but I no longer recognized the area. I felt that I couldn’t drive safely anymore and decided to start walking. I was lost in a place I’d never been yet knew the general direction to go and that it was very far to walk. The sun had set and I had to keep moving. The van was too far back now. There were people standing on the sidewalk at the top of a steep road. I decided to go the other direction for now so they wouldn't be bothered by a stranger approaching. I know where I’m going but just can’t seem to get there. To get to the parallel road below you have to cut through this home. They actually have a door to three large sets of stairs, then you come out of their garage. All the while I was thinking as I dreamed, “How did I mess up the register totals last night?”

I thought the phone was ringing then realized that it wasn’t the right sound. Actually, it was the alarm clock. I woke-up and hit ‘snooze,’ and went back to sleep thinking that I need to go to the grocery store. “Let’s see: paper towels, pizza sauce . . .” In my tired mind I shower while still lying down, so utterly exhausted; I want an invention where the bed tips up and slides me out the bottom of the covers into a cart on a track, then wheels me into a shower, without all that effort. I can shower in the mesh cart and then go through a series of dryers ---a sleeper’s assembly line! Next I was inside the store still able to sleep while horizontally hovering 3 ft.over the floor through the aisles. I see myself in third-person floating by the shelves, see the pizza sauce but I don’t pick it up. It doesn’t matter what the other shoppers think because I’m too tired to care. A sleep shopper hovering around the store, able to rest for a few more minutes before his alarm goes off again, in anticipation of that rude shock. I keep resisting a fall from the edge of a dizzying precipice, get right up to the breezy edge and then stop myself, thinking, “Two more minutes max, don't jump” ---may as well get-up now, careful sleep is worthless. The world cannot stand sleepers; they’re just too comfortable.
Last edited by tvelection on Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Reposted from page 2, no.2

Postby tvelection » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:04 am

Merlin wrote:
I think we need to examen our lives and culture entirely?

and
Nobody asked you anything right? And that is the reason for our drift out of a fulfilling life for the most part.


Merlin, I agree on that last point, there are many drifts from fulfillment (and living-in-the-moment as well), such as reflection, adversity, regret, fantasy, and so on. Individuals are constantly making future estimations and plans, in ever-shifting perspectives (like subjectivity and objectivity, contextual environment, simultaneously in-the-mind and in-the-world). It seems that no fulfillment, no happiness, no love, no hate, no religion, is pure. If one must ask if they’re happy the chances are that they aren’t, but that awareness can always be remedied by making deliberate changes. Maybe an over-examined life is never lived and the over-active life is never expressed. Maybe the potential of living life to the fullest is only an unreachable ideal, never made real. Since all the outcomes of decisions that could’ve been made differently are unknowable, we cannot know if we could have been more fulfilled. I like eastern philosophies in that sense; they are not intellectual or spiritual but instead seek to still the mind and allow inner peace to calm the weary traveler, taking that oasis wherever they go. No logical rigor, no philosophical doubts, just a deep breath that exhales all the petty stress “we” westerners (I don’t necessarily know if the reader is) heap on ourselves as if its all caused by external factors and we must react and always run around.

At times we alter the arc of our trajectory with limited control, making changes accordingly. Even if nobody asks what we are doing and why we are doing it, we still reflect on our past decisions to act or not to act and how that turned out (learning through experience). The advertisements for gung-ho motivational speakers will insist we be more proactive. While that’s usually effective when applied to talent or ethical pursuits which require discipline, many times (at least for me) I look back on foreseeable "negative consequences" and think, "All I had to do was nothing!" In those contexts the proactive approach seems like mindless folly without caution. At times it is better to seek more information first and having the wisdom to know when to act or not to act to attain desired consequences, results, without intentionally or negligently harming others. Sometimes I fail to act and a great opportunity may have been missed because I wasn’t ready or didn’t recognize it. Those are our choices. Otherwise an individual should be aware of their full immersion in cultural values, institutions, behavior, and language that were initially adopted in youth, without question, then reinforced/conditioned by assimilation to the particular peers, nation, religion, and media with which they're engaged.

Merlin wrote:
Lets discus this exiting premises

. . . but I have no formal premises, no oppositional polemics ---only subjective observations that cite no objective measures or authorities other than a shared understanding with some people. This post is not meant as a counter-argument or even a defense because there’s no over-arching theory to defend here, just an individualist’s appeal to social non-conformity. You are free to say what “fulfillment” means to you Merlin so I can read it and judge for myself. I’m satisfied reading posts here and don’t mind if others have the last word even if they contradict what I say. The issues are mostly personal or subjective (e.g. what is a fulfilling life? What does “originality” mean? How can an individual preserve his/her ethical nonconformity in the face of the crowd? e.g. Kaepernick).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A Train of Thought”

In Plato’s Cineplex lights flash in seeing eyes and sounds roar in hearing ears. From the theater’s dark smooth screen we walk out into the blazing afternoon sun with a slight surprise that it’s light out, launching into a “stationary” orbit over Earth, staying in the sunlight, letting the theater spin with the Earth into night’s shadow, a terrestrial eclipse. You block your own light too, don't interfere, let it pass through, you’ll disappear.

We mediate sense-perceptions from a limited perspective with faulty memories that can only re-imagine, reconstructing the images and sounds, attempting realism, “based on a true story” yet inaccurate and uncertain. We were in there and then we moved out here, wherever we are. You remember what it was like in there when out here. You must have fallen asleep and woke-up on a train, a rider whose seat is turned towards the rear, unable to see the landscape the train is approaching in front and then only as it passes (moves past). If you're not ready you'll miss many thoughts that pass by. The “present” moment has been given no meaning yet. It’s too new to understand the blur of close movement so we let it pass farther and then look. We always assume a consistency, continuity, and that’s the flow of our psychology. The train will not rip through reality and into void ahead. Although I can’t know that for certain, I don’t expect anomaly either. These conditions may be interpreted different ways.

We ran fast, chased and laughed, moved with the Earth of our trifling heaven. Lived that we should experience existence, of plants and animals, sunsets, invisible wind, and all the colors of light. At times the dawn’s yellow full moon has the illusion that it’s not out in space but a large orb that’s actually inside the atmosphere, as if a plane could fly over it. We admire this gorgeous globe with its ghostly glow . . . stood like a king on a balcony before the throngs then retired inside and went to sleep in an imaginary world without physical laws, no gravity, seeing yourself from outside your body and instantaneous motion.

A mute prose of existence penetrates our minds. While our spoken words move the air with accented rhythms of expression . . . pauses, silences, rests . . . legato and staccato sounds with pronounced emphasis, slurred groupings that form vocalized phrases of articulated breath, vowel-tones with consonant beats. We know how it goes, how to rap the next sentence as its being thought-out ahead, to perform it, improvising on variations of meaning. Conveyances . . . to be understood, an interaction, expressed and interpreted, off the old gold standard of pointing and grunting at things that are present, simple distinctions “this one but not those.” Everything is in the mind and yet nothing is in the mind, except its own matter. It’s not all in what we say but also in how we choose to express it. We speak in shades of meaning, of lexicon leaves on branches of knowledge, filtering ideas with figurative observations, and an abstract calculus with elements which have well defined meanings but do not necessarily exist or only within the conscious apprehension of the concept.

“Spooky action at a distance” (Yet another quantum physics fantasy)
This section is an argument and the premise is: Action at a distance is a theory that is false, with weak evidence that “jumps” to a conclusion without merit.

I was stretched-out on a lounge chair one quantum night and I noticed a swarm of lightning bugs that were flashing sporadically in a field, disappearing into the pitch, and then flashing again. I watch one flash amidst the others and believe I had followed it to its next flash point. Is that the really same one? How can I know? I missed all their dark movements, cannot determine its true direction or next location in the lightning-bug cloud, a collective matter without a nucleus just impulses that are seemingly random. Maybe we can find a pattern though ---of male flies circling females, some shells of probable location. Perhaps individuals (as well as lightning bugs) display a simultaneous coincidence, a common meaning in physical signals.

We’ll pretend that every thousandth firefly has a recessive wing-size problem and one wing is just a little smaller than the other so that it seems to vibrate as it flies. In the wide swarm in the darkness in front of me one bug lights-up while vibrating here as another one 50ft. away simultaneously lights-up vibrating too. Do I assume it is the same one? How in the world did I “earmark” one or both? The "two" bugs light-up at the same time, a coincidence of simultaneous behavior or of experimental set-up of two-of-a-kind caught moving in the same way, not one. Do we conclude that we have proven that the same firefly exists in two different places at once, interpreted into “spooky action at a distance” as if that was a sufficient explanation? Then let’s just call it “magic” and when we can interpret observations that only to seem to prove it, we’ll claim that we have proven it. The claim is so extraordinary that it’s highly doubtful. Is what is apparent always real? Or, if we say that one subatomic particle can be in two places at once, why stop there . . . let me play the modern theorist and ask, “Then why not three or four locations?” So much for conservation of mass! No more need for concrete realism if theoretical physics simply breaks from both logical non-contradiction and empirical conservation of mass. Interesting, so if we put the firefly dual-particle that's in two different places together in only one place do we also claim that each self-same fire-fly is actually two? We can interpret results different ways but can we say conclusively that one firefly is in two places at once or that two fireflies are in the same place at once? No.
Last edited by tvelection on Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Existentialism

Postby tvelection » Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:31 am

To be human is to be a walking contradiction, of the practical and the philosophical, of experience and knowledge, of action and repose, of past hopes and present realities, of present realities and future plans, of wisdom and of action. We’re perplexed, imprisoned in an amazing experience of existence. The world may never know the stories of the happiest people because they came and went quietly maybe had a rewarding family life or maybe enjoyed a life of solitary contentment ---just enjoyed life for what it is, whatever they made it into. They were happy yet they didn't really know all the answers, neither do we. Many people in the past died of diseases now curable or suffered undeserved injustices. What will we do for them now? Nothing. I want to give a moral to the story but only find contradictions: life is short so enjoy the party, or life is short so make it meaningful ---be careful and be carefree, or maybe ethics must be the "moral" like: Don’t harm, hate, or threaten others, violence is weakness.

Sharing “happiness” and “love,” optimism and inspiration, are better than resigning ourselves to nothingness and pessimism. Happy individuals, the actors, artists, scientists find that the reward is in their work and the reward is in their relationships or family, regardless of fame. So we come back to existentialism ---defined as the meaning we give to life, what we believe, and how we live with others. What is an individual's goal? Just "will" (Schopenhauer). Will with no object? Just "power" (Nietzsche). Power without reason, ethics, or emotion? No. A parent's wish comes close, "It matters not whether my children are wealthy, choose marriage or a single life, become a doctor or a grocery bagger, only that they're happy."

I’ve talked with so many people who stay in unhappy marriages or went to school for something that, it turns out, they don't really like being or doing. The superficiality in making appearances or living a lie are some ways we limit our potential, while others are starving, wracked by disease, without medicine, homeless, suicidal, or full of ignorant hatred. We try to maintain our happiness amidst a world where so many are suffering. An optimistic attitude and honest effort ---that’s all the individual has in life, negativity ruins the joy of life. So you failed at some desired end (maybe it wasn’t really your talent). So you were hurt by a bad relationship (there will be better ones). So someone got the better of you (they'll be punished by the effect of their own immorality). So you lost all your money (you’ll make your comeback). So you suffered great tragedy (you've gained wisdom, albeit at too high a price). Always keep your optimism and good-will; it may be all you have left at some point. You’re still alive, others are not so lucky; such a life is a gift that no one really deserved. We can change our attitude, to find a joy of existence inside, to stand in awe of what we've gained ---this world of others in which we find ourselves.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Postby tvelection » Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:11 pm

Creativity and invention.

Invent something new in the next 5 minutes . . .

The first thing you may try to do is to rehash some old ideas you've had, not truly improvising but instead easily recalling something from memory. The real exercise, however, is not doing that because that's cheating or at least intellectually dishonest. Rather you're to come up with an idea for something that's new to yourself too. So begin again: In the next 5 minutes invent one new "thing," or an idea for things, an expression of content, a new art-object, a new science, presentation, a novel or useful device, that you've never thought of before . . .

What are your first thoughts when you begin trying? Probably rationalizing the situation, asking, "Invent something?? Where do I even start? What scale is the item? What context?" The request seems too vague because we're conditioned to think within the bounds of education/knowledge as presented to us and not our own imagining, creating, or dreaming. Rationality may resist the starting question by refusing to even try. Rationality applies learned knowledge according to standard forms already in experience (current technology platforms, popular trends) while creativity expresses what may seem irrational at first experience (like a Christmas tree to someone who's freshly abroad from an isolated aboriginal village) whether art is ridiculous or brilliant is in the mind of the one who experiences it and that experience changes with age, context, critical skills, comparisons, and more exposure/assimilation. Outside of problem solving, invention is the creation/production of something that's utterly unnecessary for survival but desired for the qualities of its experience (e.g. a movie, music), conveyance of meanings, a virtual/metaphorical/symbolic language-world (like music, English, or math). Many times the arts reveal our human struggle, with desires, ethics, physical limitations, in ways that psychology, sociology, or science do not.

. . . such protests to the initial question are avoidances that help to draw a blank because the rational approach breaks down when there are no specific limits, rules, or conditions (artistic freedom v. problem solving). And you can't use visualization to give form to objects that have not yet even been conceived, nor play around with imagined shapes in hopes that alone will suggest an invention ---unlike seeking rational scientific models of, say, DNA, where the form exists but we have to derive it from laboratory data. Otherwise, this tendency to imagine forms in an attempt to invent could be called "shapism." You cannot invent complex content or devices with shapism alone (picturing/images/visualization). In many cases too, the the form is a result of the function, as in nature's biological specializations. Shapism is like a futuristic movie set with a spaceship control panel, that's "shapism" because there's no actual knowledge working tech. there, it's just an image. The bias of the visual-imagination is that an inventor may imagine forms or shapes without yet knowing how they are used or in what context. We try to "see" it before we even know what it is or what scale it has. If we imagined a cake would we know that it is to eat? Or even how to make it and with what ingredients? Maybe a better method is to imagine the context first. Otherwise, the form in this case tries to precede the essence (what it looks like v. what it is), which may be fine in abstract art but not with invention. The irony is that shapism (picturing things) cannot be avoided it is a matter of the approach. Shapism is well suited for cross-uses and questions like how many uses can you think of for empty 2l plastic bottles (we begin thinking and picturing). A good example of pure shapism is an old TV show called "The Liars Club" where a unfamiliar mechanical device was passed in front of them and they all gave plausible ways it is used but only one was telling the truth of its design.

Now, once again, stop reading and invent something new in the next 5 minutes . . . a rational mind will refuse to even try.

Now without shapism we can't picture anything necessarily (a priori) and we could allow reason to narrow this vast field of possibilities down. In the form of questions: What is this invention for? What is it? What does it do? How does one use it? Does it move or is it static? Do its changes have meaning? Is it mechanical, electrical, or electromechanical? Does it need a CPU? What field is it in? Is it a household item? A tool? Is it an art expression or an applied science (tech)? Or maybe even questions like----what would I want or really want for myself? Here, reason and knowledge can help lead intuition to where it can make leaps.

A layman's approach is simply having a problem and fixing it with something that they create and fabricate themselves, a simple/effective fix to a problem. Many times trivial in a larger existential sense. The popular device in some door hinges that prevents it from swinging wide. But such inventions (necessity's offspring) are more problem solving than fine art. "Art" says, "create something new that has no use further than its language, expression, or impression (not tools/utilities but works of content and meaning) nonetheless this new art will be a vessel of meaning and interpretive content of common/shared aesthetics ---fascinating people who use or experience it by it's being so well done or unlike other things.

Many technological inventions are timely, for instance, when solid state transistors and microchips were created and available, that circumstance was primed for tinkerers to come up with a memory/file-address storage computer with some kind of interface beyond switches (keyboard entry with the first ASCII codes). Some constructions wait for stronger lighter materials before becoming possible. Is it reasonable to assume if the cathode-ray tube television had not been invented by one inventor that television would have been discovered/invented by another at a later date? Maybe the cathode ray by someone else or instead another with digital pixels, or different ways would have been utilized to produce similar effects (an illusion of moving pictures). This can't really be said of a work of art. Nobody would have written his same Third Symphony had Beethoven not done so. The artist seeks an expression of something new, of curious creations. The scientist uses the laws of physics and current technologies/materials while the arts involves the proclivities of the artists, subjective tastes, current popular movements mixed with original expressions. We still experiment with what we are not yet capable of and what we don't know trying to understand the unknown through the more established facts (a moonshot cancer cure, manned craft to Mars). Scientists and engineers will invent, test, explore, and correlate with specific ends in mind, for a reason, not an existential expression but a correspondent knowledge that allows us control of physical laws, to produce a "machine," new materials, calculated changes, or an intended result.

The modern individual inventor cannot compete at the level of specialized industries. Anything an individual invents can be made better by a team of engineers, designers and chemists. So that the modern inventor is mostly responsible for crude prototypes or reasonable designs. I call this "macroelectronics," that is, using existing microelectronics devices in a new way, with a new use, or in combination with another device and used in a new way. Nobody can build a better cell-phone than Nokia using standard microchips (fabricated) in their garage, that much is obvious and in a sense the first Apple computer was a macroelectronic invention.

Another approach in this kind of invention is to move underneath high-technologies. For instance, in basic circuitry there is a battery/powersource the closed circuit (wire) and the load (a light, a heater, any device, etc). There are also electric controls: variable resistors (for appropriate resistances), diodes (maybe for AC to DC, to smooth a pulse), capacitors (to create a hold/release, charge/discharge, pulsation or as old R/C timers), induction coils or electromagnets sometimes as actuators or valves. The point is: who said that all the early components were done being created? Or that a person could not still write a revolutionary program or machine language routine on an Apple IIe for instance? Memory power and computing speed is not always the whole story, sometimes it's new algorithms or maybe cleverly nested input/output (goto) loops. As for basic circuitry some things will have a novel effect on electric just as those standard circuit components and can create a new phenomenon in the circuit, another measurable aspect of electrical flow through the conductor field. (like the discovery of superconductivity or maybe a magnetic field effects?). Otherwise corporate technologies build and evolve so far ahead that the individual inventor alone cannot compete, build a CPU microchip as well as say, Intel. The world is becoming more specialized with regard to science and technologies (and future US jobs) fields that depend on highly specialized scientists. The creativity in science and technology builds on itself. No internet yet ---no Facebook, no microchip yet ---no Apple computer, no Cathode-ray tube no television made that way.

Invent something new in the next 5 minutes . . .

So what are your first thoughts now? This is meant as an exercise where a person can observe their own acts of creation, initial perplexity at the challenge helps find a better way to deal with it or better approach (20 questions?). I take artistic approaches anymore because it finds things rationality overlooks by formality. There are thousands of brilliant scientists in the US alone a general inventor cannot compete with their knowledge. What an original inventor may do is produce something that works in specialized field without completely understanding it. (there was an outbreak of disease in a localized area in 1800s England they ended up tracing it to a common water well, shut it down, and the sickness stopped. The point is that it worked whether they knew the pathology of the disease or not). The extensive knowledge of specialist sometimes blinds them to alternatives. But creative ones try new forms. For instance the architect Frank Gehry in an interview said that he crumples paper into wads and then studies the forms. An artist might scribble with their weak hand or with a pencil in both hands make curves and shapes then find new patterns to use with formal elements, a musician may improvise new music instead of memorizing old music, that in itself is the creative process the first draft in music and literature is the initial improvisation.

Dream-up something and don't use "rationality" as much as imagination, shapism is okay as long as you acknowledge that it's pure imagery without a working design yet. Other exercises: Imagine that you're a famous inventor and that ideas easily come to you. Without stress you suggest many irrational things that may or may not lead further as if it were an exploration. Imagine you're dreaming and walking among your own inventions, what do you see? Don't think, don't try. Let it come to you . . . what is it that you can express, what is "beautiful" or meaningful? If you draw a blank then allow that and continue. Like the 5 minute challenge this is an just exercise to help a person observe what they do in the act itself before education takes over by shooting down all unfamiliar ideas and creating none. The act of creation involves knowledge but is different. Creativity, even on the level of intuition/subconscious takes practice, much like in music ---you can actually know the entire body of knowledge called "music theory" and still not be able to create one good melody. But once you learn where such melodies "come from," that inner source, the creative trance of a painter in the very act of painting, or a saxophonist in the act of improvising jazz, intuitive decisions made so effortlessy that they cannot be explained (those unique tendencies that constitute "originality"), like an inventor engaged in "potentiality" and creation.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Postby tvelection » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:33 am

Part 2. The art of invention.

The difference between an exercise in creativity and actual technical invention is that one can’t really invent many specialized things in 5 minutes, many leaps of a scientist or specialist are a culmination of years if not decades of work. But that argument does not delegitimize the whole effort either. That’s how educated leaps are made, they just “stand on the shoulders of giants” (Newton) while reaching further. What the 5 minute exercise does is to help develop that long since silenced organ of creation in adults. Creativity is an untapped source that’s also valuable after some competent knowledge of different subjects is gained and may lead to revolutionary creations, experiences, actions, or expressions.

Some may have read the post above and come away unsatisfied, possibly unable to address the 5 min. challenge. I had trouble when I tried at first too. The only difference is that I’ve had a decade or so to think about it and it’s as telling as it can be frustrating. What happened most in the beginning was that I’d draw a blank. We’re afraid to use the full power of our imagination that dreams suggest is possible as if an innate fear of full imagination (and maybe for good reason with regard to natural selection and survival). Now, our whole modern lives we’re like sponges. We seek input, observe, collect information, data, experience, knowledge, what employees, co-workers or family are doing, education, money, furniture, ---in a current civilization that we happened to be born into, ready for us or not (our “knowledge” is prepackaged, nice and neat). So when we’re told to produce or create something new our tightly packed minds do not know what to think, confused, reverting to Locke’s “tabula rasa” (blank slate) . . . all along education and entertainment has fed us information and we consumed it. To be intelligent of facts is to be a sponge with an excellent memory, no need to create just pass the required exams, digest the material given. After being bombarded with information and objective testing and reasoning our whole life and after seeking information and finding too much on the web, it’s no wonder that when we’re asked to create it does not “compute.” It’s like someone who loves food and good meals but does not know how to cook.

When we were young we were originals and creative, just explored, had very few memories of doing things the “wrong” way, then began to imitate and were trained in proper social behaviors, (which is not necessarily “bad” when compared to a “feral” human) then went to school and not only intellectually assimilated but socially assimilated to a value-giving culture who tries to define you and whom you define yourself as. The only real training in creation comes from the fine arts because even though there’s creativity in, say, a scientist setting up a new experiment or forming a new theory, those informed tech fields are at a “forefront” of compounded historical knowledge. Yet even after years of education, at the “cutting edge” of any complex field ---there are the simplest of interpretations still being made. The leading edge in specialized complexities is surprisingly simplistic, like the observations by the astronomer of a star’s change in light intensity, they ask themselves–what is the meaning of this? What are the possibilities within the limits of known physical laws (any still unknown?). Anyway, when you are asked to invent some “thing” you may end up inventing no thing. Where does one even start? We can’t start with the thing we haven’t invented yet. We create in the context of our subjective experiences and objective behaviors, actions, and effects. Our creative abilities have long since been shut down (except for amateur and professional artists). This is the productive and imaginative power of arts.

As for the “flash” ideas that come from the 5 minute challenge, individual or group brainstorming, or immediate improvisation . . . there will be many bad ideas. We have this meritorious notion that every idea we have must be great or at least good. This is why groups who brainstorm should always allow ridiculous ideas without any shame. To put it another way, when you were in college or high school do remember the people with a hilarious sense of humor, the “naturally” funny ones? One thing that you notice is that they are funny because they are always trying experimenting and many times fail, so-much-so that they get good at gauging reactions and adjusting (like a comedian). But what we remember most were the funny stories not the bombs. The point is that creativity must be allowed to produce bad, ill-conceived, impractical, ideas in order to give it the free rein to make the amazing ones.

You need an environment of sorts in the imagination, not a blank. One effective way is to imagine complex situations and not context-less objects of inexplicable shape. In other words, the problem with the exercise of imagining a museum of your own inventions in my post above is that a museum takes things out of context; it isolates them and displays them. So some future person would see an old lawnmower and not know what it was for out of context, just exhibited in a room. So the approach is to have an environment (a complex situation’s concept) then visualization/shapism is for the “how?”

For example, there was an interesting historical show about the rise of military aviation and they came up with a machine gun that would shoot only between the propeller blades as they spun by chaining the gun to the cam shaft with the right timing. The point is not about war or even airplanes but the idea of a series of discrete elements (the bullets) that “filter” through a perpendicular opposition of elements (the blades). Now this is a concept and it can be used for auto-car traffic intersections instead of street lights or an electromagnetic field that shuts down when certain items pass through. It’s also like blood platelets filing into vessel conjunctions to capillaries, or two pulse lasers set in a perpendicular path where the particles of light do not deflect or maybe just the reverse have the to streams of elements collide at every element. Maybe we want to separate the discrete elements and some of them will collide with the perpendicular counterparts and others will go through. Isn’t a semiconductor a filter, like a transistor, that turns on and off with the concept of thresholds (in this case, voltage input). And so we are better (more productive) to imagine caused effects, and not things. The effect of flour and water dough found to raise when contaminated with yeasts. The delay in cars moving when the light turns green as each one reacts and individually accelerates, unlike a train where all cars move at once, those are concepts/abstracted situations even metaphorical/analogy in a sense. There’s also the concept of blockage, when it rains you stand underneath an umbrella and it blocks the rain, in an eclipse the moon blocks the sun’s light, and so on. An invention is always a complex idea because a simple idea of, say, some abstract sculpture isolated in a museum display has no meaningful attachment to its environment, to us, a relevant connection beyond the aesthetics of form, color, texture, and contours. What makes the concept complex is that it’s a relationship between at least two things.

When you invent something in 5 minutes it doesn’t have to be good. It is exercise for an atrophied power of creation, like the young still have, in the old elementary school dry pasta arts, finger-painting, crayons, clay, paper, glue, scissors, etc. We may grow out of some of those media but should never grow out of that prolific creativeness. That’s what an education system without the arts misses.

Here are a few bad answers I’ve had in 5 minutes, “A car with a bed in the back” first this idea is derivative … derived as a mere feature to a car, no car no feature. And the feature is not something new but something very common, a bed. Also . . . that is what a van can do, what need is there for a car? This is where pragmatism and rationality may help, with realistic critiques but not closemindedness (e.g. that’s just stupid!). How about litter that finds its own way to garbage collection areas? Lol, I’m not even going to defend that one as to “how” but do you see the point that to get to the good ideas you cannot avoid silly ones? That’s the nature of creativity and like a comedian the new material is untested until it is tried and if it does not make the audience laugh then it’s adjusted or tossed out.

Do you think the wheel as an invention was easy? Had you never seen wheels in your life don’t be so confident that you would have figured them out! I highly doubt it. We’re spoiled by others ideas, surrounded by them. The Mayans and Incas went for thousands of years without utilizing the wheel; it is not some easy idea at first. And unlike shapism you don’t just picture a round disc and connect it with useful rolling motion. Maybe somewhere pre-Egypt someone was watching people roll stones over logs and thought, “What if we cut the center out of the log and attached two cross-sections with an 'axle' instead?” Even in the cliche MacGyver-style improvisation nothing is the object it was designed to be but only insofar as it was useful for a desired end when combined with other things, an item that could be modified and made useful, a paperclip as a missing throttle spring, etc. Invention is a contextual meaning or use, a relationship between things and concepts that relates or integrates disparate things in a new way or for a new purpose.

In scientific creativity I’m always reminded of “the professor” from an old TV show called “Gilligan’s Island.” This shows the power of the scientist. In the show he would interpret meaning into circumstances that were beyond the understanding of the others. By “meaning” I’m saying more that he realized a usage and gave “meaning” as such. The professor finds some ionic solution (electrolyte) and maybe one that is less so and next he finds a semi-permeable barrier material already on the island with which he can construct a battery to power their radio. So he picks up the material knows its properties and rhetorically says, “Do you know what this means?” That’s the question of the creative scientist who looks for something and sees the material use in the concept, interprets meaning not in some one thing but how it can be used in concert with other things to produce an effect none of those things can produce separately. Louis Pasteur noticed that treatment with weakened old rabies instead of fully infecting the person with the disease actually created an immune response, at one point probably saying to a trusted onlooker, “Do you know what this means?”
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Logic, philosophy, and individual originality

Postby tvelection » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:46 pm

I have a small collection of around 100 books, and four shelves is hardly a "library." I’m in the process of donating most to the library so I only have the books I consider essential. There are only about 15 authors whose works I intend to keep. The rest I can read at the public library or online but do not want to drag around the hard copy. I want to write about their influence on me. So here are a few paragraphs concerning the most essential ones: Emerson, Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, and novelist Dostoyevsky. The others are not discussed here, Steinbeck, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Krishnamurti and Osho (far-eastern Indian philosophers), and poets Tennyson, Donne, Goethe, Rumi, Arnold (the mention of the Cliffs of Dover in the poetry thread), and Frost.

Although Nietzsche had deep insights and I value his books of aphorisms, I'll probably get rid of most his works. I’m not impressed by “Thus Spake Zarathrustra," though, like many books it makes a few good points. In this case through parable and journey to solitude and transformation. Nietzsche is brilliant I also find Nietzsche to be an egotistical braggart. He wrote a work titled “Why I am so Wise,” judgmental, hard-hearted, for racial purity, chauvinistic, overbearing, and loves to talk war from his philosopher’s armchair, put him in the front lines though and watch his opinion change (he thought he was so special as to opine like a strong man in an ivory tower). In his “Twilight of Idols” ("The Four Mistakes of Philosophy" is a good chapter but Aristotle already figured out that particulars precede universals, contrary to Platonic forms. While "The problem of Socrates” chapter is just insult. Nietzsche twists Socrates own words and calls him sick, “decadent” (a high sin for Nietzsche). Acuses Socrates of being smug in his superiority with dialectical reasoning. When Socrates admits to all vices (unlike the heroic Nietzsche himself, lol) Nietzche uses it against him. Then goes on to claim that Socrates' outer ugliness was a sign of inner ugliness (monstrum). Nietzsche criticizes and insults those out of his league. That’s why Nietzsche is also “so unwise.” He tries too hard to upturn all humanist values (his transvaluation of all values) and becomes a ridiculous contrarian. He argues against the fellowship of mankind, abhors the notion of “conscience or social conscience. And actually wants us to return to our naturally violent, survival of the fittest, base instincts. To suppress these “strong” animal natures is to him “decadence.” I’m sure the Nazi’s adored him. Yet some Nietzsche scholars often are apologists for some of his violent refreshing-wars garbage.

Now . . . as for Ralph Waldo Emerson, I’ve owned copies of his complete essays since my freshman year of high school. The best teacher I ever had. He is not an analytic/logical philosopher but rather a literary one. The key is the scope of his thinking which is “transcendental” not in any literal sense but rather a subjective and figurative sense. The scope of his writing style is only equaled, in my opinion, by Shakespeare. He can connect a detail like a blade of grass to the generality of the universe. I was just re-reading his second series of essays, after I don’t know how many times. Particularly “The Nominalist and the Realist” and each time I’ve read it amazes me. His knowledge and vocabulary (like Shakespeare) was extensive so for new readers his essays are not “easy” reads. Nonetheless he interweaves the minute details of life with the grandest universal narratives. His essays taught me how to write, in surfaces and depths. The wisdom in his essays is vast, but he is not a polemic, an arguer, one reads his essays and is free to agree and disagree. I love “Self-Reliance” but cringe at some of the unusually heartless lines of a person with such a big heart. But that is his nature he is not a logician he, “Says what he thinks in hard words today though it contradict everything he said yesterday” (to paraphrase). He does not promote a neat little philosophical system for you to believe like Hegel and writes far over the heads of systematizers like Marx. One reads Emerson as Emerson and there is no pretension he talks directly with the reader. He developed Montaigne’s style into a fuller universal and at the same time private existence, one of honesty. Even has an essay about Montaigne and Thoreau (his friend). His truths are subjective, you can agree or disagree but he gets to the deepest parts of our existence like no other, save Shakespeare. Also on a historical note when Whitman wrote “Leaves of Grass” the poetry establishment tore him up in reviews, the only person that gave him positive feedback was the one who recognized the talent and originality … Emerson. In fact he has an essay “Quotation and Originality”

I recommend these essays: First series essays
“Self-Reliance” “Compensation” “Circles” “the Oversoul” “Spiritual Laws” “Intellect” and “Art” and in the Second Series essays “The Poet” “Experience” “Nature” “Nominalist and the Realist” and then whatever you find interesting from there. Those essays contain the most profitable wisdom I’ve read.

Next is the novelist Dostoyevsky, who wrote some of my favorite novels (along with Steinbeck). When I compared the prose style side-by-side I found the best translator to English to be Constance Garnett. There are “The Brothers Karamazov” and “Crime and Punishment.” My only criticism is that he has a slight Christian agenda in his themes. In “Crime . . .” a religious woman “saves” him and guides him to do the right thing. In “Brothers . . .” Alyosha is saintly while Ivan his atheist brother is more cold and calculating. A great book, easily in my top five. There was one minor scene about conscience that was brilliant. A child had an idle urge or curiosity to cruelty so he put a pin in food and gave it to a dog. When the dog ran off yelping the boy cried and ran home. He hurt for the dog’s pain, and felt the backlash of his own guilty conscience knowing that he caused that pain.

One of the themes in “Crime and Punishment” is about an unnecessary robbery that becomes a brutal double murder. Dostoyevsky captures the imagery like a master, like a dark Rembrandt as describes Raskalnikov’s dingy apartment with yellowed wallpaper. As for the story Raskalnikov’s crime so sickens his own sense of conscience that it renders him delirious and paranoid. He ruined his life and he knew it. The best lesson is one of self-exception in morality. The detective is onto him and looks up an old college paper he wrote. In it he says that revolution justifies violence and that the “higher intellects” of revolutionaries justifies their violence. So the detective asks, “So of course you include yourself in this exception?” Meaning, people who justify violence will give themselves an exception, will rationalize why they are so special that it is okay when they do it but wrong for others. That was Raskalnikov’s essential mistake of hubris. I did not like the “mad-woman” scene and personally would have edited it out. I do not like his novel “Devils” although it does reflect on recent politics in the world, start a movement/revolution by causing disruption and embarrassing the demonized establishment with lies, humiliations, and accusations, proud idiots causing chaos, sound familiar?

Shakespeare towers over literature and should never stop being taught in modern schools. His talent with words is unparalleled in known history. His complex use of metaphors, not simply A is B but how A and B are related. Shakespeare personifies the world and all its parts, might make the “ear” argue the “eye” for instance, or the day jealous of the night. What exquisite imagination, insight into human nature and existence, and expressions of language. His speeches and soliloquies are the height of literary potential in my opinion. Macbeth’s “Life is but a walking shadow,” Hamlet’s “Quintessence of dust,” or "Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay . . ." Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet (2:26 - 3:26) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBpGgB1NTYg

Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" in full, Branagh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjuZq-8PUw0

This tragic scene is from the same 1996 film production of "Hamlet," The name of the main character who wonders at the nature of existence, life, and death. For those not familiar with this play, in this scene they are burying Ophelia (Winslet) who went mad "deprived of her ingenious sense" W.S. and committed suicide, Hamlet (Branagh), having had a "complicated" on/off love relationship with her, did not know until this point. He hides with his friend and watches as Ophelia's brother, Laertes, is overcome with grief and can't bear to let go . . . and jumps into her grave. (0:00 - 1:05) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zKlkbmylIs

“Romeo and Juliet” has lush and original imagery, “like new snow on a raven’s back.” Act 2, scene 3. There are so many great speeches within his plays, let alone his more rigid sonnet forms. In the opening scene of “Love’s Labour Lost” he brilliantly pivots around the knowledge and the word “study.” Shakespeare’s use of language is a height of written/spoken language.

Plato, in the character of Socrates, showed an inquisitiveness that could bring out the intelligence of his claimants not for the sake of Socrates ego, but Instead by questioning and making points ---to be agreed to or denied. He has Socrates claiming ignorance (Socratic irony) and in doing so eliminates ego into a "midwife" of ideas or a perceptive guide through uncharted territory. He knew how to lead the horse to water and make it drink. People, myself included, can be so in love with their precious theories. He frustrated the egos of the “knowers.” His ideas of a realm of mathematical/geometrical perfect objects is a bit much and suggestive not of a god or gods but of a supernature that just does not have any justification beyond pure analytics, that is, by definition only. Otherwise he showed how to question concepts and ideas by taking them to faulty ends or showing their premises to be faulty or contradictive. In “Philebus” Plato does some amazing work, he shows how languages of words, sounds, or numbers are created and standardized out of a mess of indefinite variety, by choosing and standardizing definite elements out of continuums. Amazingly perceptive dialogues like “The Sophist” “Theaetetus” or “Timaeus.” With regard to Emerson's essays, he also wrote an essay entitled “Plato, the Philosopher”

Finally, Aristotle (McKeon, best edit) may have one of the highest of analytic IQs alongside Socrates, Plato, DaVinci, Archimedes, Newton and perhaps a few others that other people would add. Anyway, when I was young and first cracked open his works I was baffled at his abstraction and ability to analyze, say, logically valid forms, or categorical logic, his use of Particulars vs. species vs. genera not meaning animals but concepts, his rejection of Plato’s realm of forms, his appeal to observing things (not yet scientifically but still acutely) he studied animals and their evolutionary parts and similarities and differentia but never hit upon evolution as theory in itself. He knew and discussed the theories of others in his analysis, of Democritus, Heraclitus, Plato, Pythagoras, etc. and would critique their ideas too. He also developed a physics of natural causes.

Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” is incredible in its analytic (not experimental or empirical) brilliance. In fact, if anyone wants to read a few pages of his thinking, read the opening of “Metaphysics” before he gets more technical. He opens with a general discussion of knowledge introduces this subject in general and then becomes more and more specific, as in comparing abstract learned-knowledge with experience. Don’t be fooled by the modern notion of the word “metaphysics” that work has nothing to do with some Reality behind reality; it's about being. At worst he tries to assert a prime mover in "Physics," but a “demiurge” original mover, not a “God” as the medieval scholastics wanted. Anyway, "Metaphysics" is about logic, existence or negation, “Either it is or it isn’t, being. It cannot be both in the same sense, at the same time, or in the same place,” to paraphrase his first principle. Otherwise, “Metaphysics” was a title given by those that organized his works and simply means “After Physics” or the work following “Physics.”

Edit: "Metaphysics" is only one example but there are many Aristotle works that are notable. If you want to see some of Aristotle's precision with regard to reasoning, try "Posterior Analytics" and "Prior Analytics."
Last edited by tvelection on Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Roy G. Biv, star-monger

Postby tvelection » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:55 am

“We-Make-Stars, Inc.” (D. Taylor)

Building stars is hard work. It’s not just web-interfacing, there’s a lot of labor in raw materials and repairs on WMS's A.I. bots which do incredible work; sometimes we need them to connect or repair us. Basically, you put-in your shift at the dust cloud and go back to the local bioplanet and relax ---live there until the completion of one new unit, and half of that is just preheating the core, then you retire with standard-plus benefits. Here at WMS Inc. (trademark) we seed and manufacture stars, with a huge nebula nursery, some dwarfs, some giants, the color is up to the customers but that is just a matter of size and fuel. We electrostatically charge a dust cloud and start it spinning with a small cyclonic whirlpool eye, then with each particle on the main-frame, we use diatomics that pull impurities out of the centrifuge and then at a certain density we initiate a fusion . . . but I won’t bore you with the details! Our stars last longer and won’t flare-up like our competitor’s, any new world will be able to sustain many life forms from their radiation. We also specialize in energy efficient stars. At WMS inc. we’ve created some of the cleanest fusion models in the business. We’ve just patented a new process that rids our synthetic stars of 99% of the impurities of old inefficient natural stars and when the fuel is gone our Red Giant stars do not collapse but instead are recycled in the center of the galaxy.

WMS inc. would love to move a star to any relative location that intelligent beings who are connected to galactic ithought desire, but regulations clearly state we need to keep all intelligent life at great distances for their own safety. We are currently lobbying the galactic commerce commission to change those regulations. Our stars are very affordable and the terms of financing are negotiable.

WMS inc. was helpful in developments for cutting edge newer generation synthetic (fission/fusion) designer stars. Unfortunately our defunct SR1 prototype’s fuel was out of balance and we had a hemispheric chunk that went dark, fluctuating like our old Pulsar beacons. Although it is still spinning, just over half is actually lit. Obviously, this is apparent to any civilization who has seen it. WMS inc. assures you that we are working to correct the problem. Our competitors claim it was a failure but we have a newer formula from the galactic wide web’s mind. WMS inc. is also still developing cold fusion . . . and I’m sure we’ll have it soon, maybe when we find “dark mass and energy” ---just around the corner.

The star business is not what it used to be when I was young. Now the cosmological environmentalists are worried that we're creating too many star-collapsed black holes which may cause galactic collisions and unintended gravity shifts. You may tour our model stars but will only remember the first one, forgetting it too soon to compare with the others. Don’t worry though, everyone keeps coming back for more. Ultimately we sell life-experiences for you and your species and no evolutionary solar system would be complete without a reasonably priced WMS custom Red Dwarf 2.0; in our own simulation trials it lasted long enough for intelligent beings to rise-up from the bacterial nucleic acids and escape the impending nova. So the next time your civilization regenerates chances are that it’s around a WMS, inc. star, with its long lasting, high quality, reliable energy.

WMS inc. would also like to announce that if you buy a star in “ithought cloud” we’ll add an inhabitable planet and bacterial tRNA seeds for you and your entire plant and animal kingdom and species. This offer is not valid in conjunction with any other offer and does not include Red Giants. For more for details just think “gww.WMS/ithought” We will give you coordinates so that you can see our products through the ithought space telescopes. And when you look at the stars remember, with WMS inc. if you can dream it we can build it.
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

creative invention

Postby tvelection » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:39 pm

“Parts-first” invention is an approach that uses a lab or garage environment, of having an available yet limited array of items or elements, available prior to any ideas of what will actually be made. One can procure and use various items, materials, and tools, to create some new, artistic, or useful utility. With “parts-first” at least you actually construct some tangible assembly, actual items that you may play around with and manipulate from the beginning. A mixed-media artist’s studio may have many unused “possible” items that are kept only for their possible/potential usage, “some day.” Parts-first invention seems to make sense, “Give me a stocked lab or garage with tools, electronics, and materials and I can combine real objects and produce real items rather than dreaming-up images with the mind’s eye (i.e. shapism).” Parts-first has no “muse” for artistic expression but works well ---after inspiration--- for specialized applications and modifications, installing after-market auto parts for instance . . . here we already have a direction, context, “telos” or purpose. Once an end-idea has been established, then a lab or specialized equipment or instrumentation might help to fabricate it, but only after the idea or concept.

There are problems with the “parts-first” approach of physically improvising inventions, a sort of material play that seems so promising at first. Here we have raw materials that may or may not be what we’ll need. Parts-first does produce finished prototypes while merely abstract ideas for designs/devices still need fabricated if feasible (e.g. say, within a budget or material strength). Yet you can’t have a method that depends on serendipity either. The flaw of a lab as being conducive-to-invention is similar to one of Aristotle’s causes, “telos” (teleology) in its original sense it merely means “purpose” and “end” an “expected result.” We need an end to guide our actions; if only it is an end for the present action . . . “which way do I turn here?” The English version of telos is more like the question “What for?” or “For what?” As opposed to identity or identifiable characteristics “What is it?” (or, “What is the definition?”) Latin: “Quid est?” Telos is the purpose, intention, the rational objective of action, an ethical logos with telos in praxis. So if one had a purpose of curing a disease they may need to use a lab but only need those items and instruments that they deem relevant to some specific approach or idea they have to better understand/address the phenomenon (effect) and its causes. The experiment must be set up to reveal some reaction that’s then interpreted into some meaningful explanation.

As an inventor you’ve been given an allowance to stock a lab with equipment and parts, CPUs and software, servo-valves, actuators, or mechanical items, hinges, springs, cogs, motors, all neatly ordered in bins; maybe a whole Home Depot store as your lab. At first this sounds appealing, your first day at the lab begins and you browse the bins of parts maybe play around with a few and then sit at the bench table. And at this point you are confronted with “telos,” for what purpose do I combine any of these things? What am I looking for? If it is art then why have I limited myself to only these available items ---only to glue together a ridiculous amalgamation of parts? And so you sit in your chair and look at it all. "Maybe I could take the screen from a door and using that as a stencil then I can . . . etc." (using concept of blockage, as masking in board-etching or using wax for watercolor that does not stay ---in the process). The first hour passes and maybe then you start thinking of household items, in your imagination problem-seeking to then problem-solve.

The next few hours you take many things out of the bins and put them on the giant work bench, “Let’s see, a photosensitive light switch combined with a light-socket-to-outlet adaptor screwed in and then an extension cord that leads to a plug connection for the plug of a motion detector light and then yet another adaptor in its light-socket. A crude sort of macroelectronic “AND” gate. If there's light AND if there's motion the final load, attached to the second extension will operate, otherwise it will not. Now this can be placed in a “mechanical” area where the light and motion may change, due to sun/shade change, night, or doors opening, people or cars moving, lights turned on, etc. ---but what for? “AND” gates are readily available by the millions and smaller than a grain of salt anyway, so what then? There needs to be more than a thing (a use, effect, or meaning). At least with this environment you can create real prototypes that are finished instead of only imaginary designs while sitting in a living room. Things go well the first few days as you start putting together items that have no specific use yet, and so the best aspect of parts-first invention is the element of free play.

Day 10: You’ve messed around with all the parts bins, the resistors the capacitors and etching boards with integrated chips, made a miniature photovoltaic robot with an electric motor and an iPhone radio control app, made various electronic curiosities. And then you sit back in your chair, tired, like a voracious reader at a library just surveying the overwhelming situation . . . what is the end of this? What is the telos? (What do I want to know? And in knowing it what do I want to do?) And you sit and think, hour after hour, action blocked by due consideration. This is the problem: You cannot invent you-know-not-what from parts because you have no idea of the usage or meaning yet. How to effectively assemble parts selected toward an end or intended result.

Maybe you make an assembly of tones and blinkers that react/interact/detect changing environmental conditions (sound, light, movement, temperature, weight, broken laser-beam, etc). And so you sit and look at all the bins of parts and ask the same question you could have asked before all the expense of the lab was necessary ---what am I trying to create? What is its purpose or expression? Maybe you can create a new (cross-)purpose by combining or using existing devices too. Parts-first does not work well because the parts do not suggest the whole; analytic categories do not reveal the gestalt being. Before televisions but close enough to when they were able to be fabricated; if we gave someone a box with all the necessary parts they would not necessarily realize that it was to make a TV, a device that is not self-contained so much as it needs to receive signals for operational content (e.g. from a camera). The parts would not necessarily lead one to discover the ends. Give someone the parts of a car and they might stack two wheels vertically, why not, the purpose of the whole machine is unknown to them.

The “idea-first” route tells us what parts we need or need to create in order to fabricate the invention which is used specifically for or to X. Although one may create specialized results in a lab, one must consider the “telos,” the purpose/application of the test or reaction. Otherwise, it becomes the luck of aimless play, limited, not freed by arbitrarily chosen (available/nearby) parts and tools. What if such an arbitrary method inventor would have invented something great through imagination, bogged down with mundane bins of switches, soon to be tech antiques (no “magic” of awe, communicating an extraordinary expression,even of simplicity) just pragmatic utility. We live by action, use, and expression.

Day 20: You, the inventor, sit on the bench barely moving for an hour, wondering, “What can be ‘said’ or done? All these parts but no ideas, is it mere novelties randomly put into a construct?” Seems haphazard, as if the parts will somehow suggest their combination and context with no end whatsoever in mind. You get up and leave the lab for the last time. The parts-first method has failed without a direction. The lab and all its items can be “stored” as forms of memory in the imagination, no need to immediately have the concrete things laying around for no reason. When an inventor sits at a desk, imagining and dreaming, that’s the lab! There’s no need see unused parts at first; it’s incoherent ---like dirt, or scattered trash, not even parts but pieces of parts.

Edison had an idea of a working light bulb before he had the parts necessary to make the first working prototype. A generator, wire, a vacuum tube, with incandescent tungsten filament inside, those disparate items do not necessarily suggest a light bulb. An idea-first (imagined effect/use first) approach to invention is more productive than parts-first because we give meaning to contexts, communications, and environments, (we appropriate meaning) but we do not give meaning to disparate parts combined playfully or accidentally yet with no end or purpose. It’s difficult to organize constituent elements with no compelling purpose as to what effects are to be caused. And so the approach would move to the question: How do we create new ideas for effects, performances, communications, arts, sciences, concepts, cures, and so on?
tvelection
Intellectual
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron