Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society ? [Philosophical Investigation]
- From: Adam Moran <adam diamat.org.uk>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:44:42 +0000
Hola ...
I. 03/02/04 02:35 Rich Walker wrote:
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.
Wow - I'd never read him, and I resemble that remark ! Yet I am civil.
However; that's the 3rd time I've been pointed indirectly to Tao ? - I
think it concerns a link between atomistic thinking and the emergence of
money in both Greek and Chinese civilisations - l8r
II. 03/02/04 02:35 Rich Walker wrote:
I took:
G.E. Moore wrote:
"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.
Wow - I've not written a line of code since '89 ... but that reads well ;)
You never know ? May be what is used and is sometimes useful in this
mumbo-gumbo / philosophy is also used and is sometimes useful in our
software ? Would you have thought that at all, at all ?
We need to strip the myth from the phenomenon.
III. I hacked / wrote:
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.
Rich wrote:
Well, it's something outside. But what is the Great God Pan today,
I hack / write:
Would you consider now the Metaphysics of Epicurus ?
----------------------------------------------------
"Every explanation is sufficient, Only the myth must be removed. It will
be removed when we observe the phenomena and draw conclusions from them
concerning the invisible. We must hold fast to the appearances, the
sensation. Hence analogy must be applied. In this way we can explain
fear away and free ourselves from it, by showing the causes of Meteors
and other things that are always happening and causing the utmost alarm
to other people"
"The great number of explanations, the multitude of possibilities,
should not only tranquillise our minds and remove causes for fear, but
also at the same time negate the heavenly bodies their very unity, the
absolute law that is always equal to itself. These heavenly bodies may
behave sometimes in one way, sometimes in another; this possibility
conforming to no law is the characteristic of their reality; everything
in them is declared to be impermanent and unstable"
*The multitude of the explanations should at the same time remove
[aufheben] the unity of the object*.
Rich wrote:
and
how do concepts enter into it?
I extrapolated Moores 'concept' to Russell / Whitehead same old same-old
Cambridge crew's 'logic' / Platonic Ideal Form - I could be wrong ? I
trust any thing of use will be refactored.
IV.
I wrote:
... 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.
Send them a [Bug].
V.
Rich wrote:
Niall wrote:
I wrote:
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.
Some of us have got robots.
VI. I wrote:
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].
Rich wrote:
Adding and removing constraints on environment and plasticity.
Plastic / Elastic
-----------------
Are *Mako's Tigers* of the cat family ?
No, they are lads who are yet to be men.
Do these pseudomorph-tigers terrorise our lads ?
Hell yes !
But not as much as they terrorise our lasses, old-ones and kids !
How can we standby and let stuff we know is in error be published by
someone in our society ?
Is this person of no value to us ? - Are they the half that's half a
half or are they the half that's whole ?
Do we allow these tigers terrorise those around us ?
l8r
VII.
Ability to chunk experience and use those chunks in later development.
Sure.
VIII.
I hacked:
This, to me, is based on an Aristotle's material cause in contrast to
Plato's [Ideal] 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 ?
Rich wrote:
A blind man carries a stick with which he feels the world. Where down
the length of the stick does the blind man end?
Nowhere down the length of the stick.
... 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?
The atom is the smallest unit of an whole identity
The *I* is atom of the *We*.
--
Adam
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/