Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society ? [Philosophical Investigation]
- From: Rich Walker <rw shadow.org.uk>
- Date: 03 Feb 2004 02:35:51 +0000
Adam Moran <adam diamat.org.uk> writes:
Hi Niall,
On 30/01/04 23:16 Niall Douglas wrote:
On 30 Jan 2004 at 3:31, Adam Moran wrote:
[snip]
W.B. Yeats writes:
"I find your brother [Moore] extraordinarily obscure" to T.S. Moore
... and Yeats was no slouch.
Thinking again of the "great men" of that period, I find myself looking
around for the "Old Crow" amongst us - and wondering what Crowley would
have made of the 'net - probably used it to raise hell against us all.
To this I would add, not half as obscure as Russell; this is an
extract from one of his more lucid writings:
"It is plain that when we validly infer one proposition from
another, we do so in virtue of a relation which holds between the
two propositions whether we perceive it or not"
"a -> b"
" -> (a,b) "
are the same relation.
The conversion from infix to prefix.
A very lucid piece.
Russell like Moore and Husserl distinguishes sharply between logic and
psychology.
To be honest I never really delved into any of the above authors in
any detail, except Yeats. Moore's early writings to me summed up where
he was driving Russell to go:
"The 'concept' is neither a mental fact nor any part of a mental
fact." Mind 1899
No doubt in Moore's mind, the 'concept' is what, *in our thinking*, we
take as our *object*: but if the 'concept' did not exist independently
of our thinking, there would be nothing for us to think about ?
Like the Platonic form, which it closely resembles, the 'concept' is
eternal and immutable. "Same old same-old" as we say around here.
Well, it's something outside. But what is the Great God Pan today, and
how do concepts enter into it?
... But since you think there is something in Russell, no doubt there
is. I shall give him further thought. Imagine that he was alive today,
and on Oeukonux - would unicode be up to the job !
A mere 2^28-odd characters - the definitions section would be even more
fearsome, and there would still be a flaw in page 118.
Oh ... I've remembered what the point of this email was - its come
from your Ecosystem thread ... On the 28-01-04 you wrote:
Software development is an ecosystem
Hmm, and yours was the only reply :(
I know, this surprised me too. If its any consolation I don't get many
replies either :( -
If you will argue in pages, you must expect delays in processing. Not
all of us are running kibo on new, fast computers.
I got two replies to my CRISmas Carol and they
both can be summed up with one phrase: "Same old same-old".
Never-the-less, I think you are on to something when you talk in terms
of ecosystems; I mumble too in terms of whole entities and wish to
theorise on how they develop from immature to mature forms [2].
Adding and removing constraints on environment and plasticity.
Ability to chunk experience and use those chunks in later development.
This, to me, is based on an Aristotle's material cause in contrast to
Plato's formal cause.
May be a good question to resolve before starting any serious debate
would be:
What are the boundaries of the ecosystem in your mind ?
A blind man carries a stick with which he feels the world. Where down
the length of the stick does the blind man end?
... and another ...
What are the boundaries of the ecosystem in my mind ?
Is there one ecosystem that includes all minds? What is the smallest
ecosystem containing and contained within a mind?
You never know, we may be talking about the same entity ?
[1] Russell's autobiography in The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell and
Moore's in The Philosophy of G.E. Moore.
[2] http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg01931.html
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | technical person | Shadow Robot Company | rw shadow.org.uk
front-of-tshirt space to let 251 Liverpool Road |
London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/