Comments on: Incommensurability http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/ Revitalizing Riddles, Mythic Story, Family, Village and Land. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:46:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: cordieb http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-25216 cordieb Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:48:25 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-25216 And how might one describe two? Interesting ideas floating around here...it's been a pleasure browsing this morning. Thanks for sharing!!! Peace, Light and Love, C. And how might one describe two? Interesting ideas floating around here…it’s been a pleasure browsing this morning. Thanks for sharing!!!

Peace, Light and Love, C.

]]> By: Willem http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-25054 Willem Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:17:52 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-25054 I have a difficult time seeing the attempt to expand the meaning of "machine" to encompass the full depth of what we are, in a generous light. Too much of a hot button word for me. I regret that I can't respond with something more substantive. Thanks for the comment though, Josh. I have a difficult time seeing the attempt to expand the meaning of “machine” to encompass the full depth of what we are, in a generous light. Too much of a hot button word for me. I regret that I can’t respond with something more substantive. Thanks for the comment though, Josh.

]]> By: Josh W http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-25044 Josh W Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:19:22 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-25044 By aspiration at least, cybernetics was hitting against this exact problem, bringing person-hood to the world of maths and machines. Or strictly, bridging the two, as different people under the banner tried to go one way or another. You can generally tell the difference by whether they use the word "just" or not: are we just machines, or can we expand the meaning of machine to encompass the full depth of what we are? Maths doesn't change the thinking of the world because it sits off separate from it, undergoing it's own revolutions that only match up in certain places, when maths-enabled leaps of logic enable people to suggest that time and space are relative, <i>and yet we can still think about it</i>. It takes those thoughts from the humming of a poem to the world of action. Only snag of course is those people who can use these leaps are few and far between, they haven't got out into the mainstream. Incidentally "Modern" scientific thinking that you are thinking of is not the scientific thinking of today! People having been kicking dull positivist observer-ignorant science's ass for 50 years! Course it still exists, but variants on constructivism with it's "justified illusions" paradigm have taken it's place as the central viewpoint of science. Unlike the old rational progress myth, it doesn't have much of a built in cause for the powerful to jump on, so they've been using economics as their justification instead, or did till a few months ago! My own view is that this constructivist view can be expanded to refer to exactly what you said; by linking the idea of a justified understanding of the world to the idea of a healthy relationship; where you gain understanding of the other person/thing and ability to live together, and those feed into each other. By aspiration at least, cybernetics was hitting against this exact problem, bringing person-hood to the world of maths and machines. Or strictly, bridging the two, as different people under the banner tried to go one way or another. You can generally tell the difference by whether they use the word “just” or not: are we just machines, or can we expand the meaning of machine to encompass the full depth of what we are?

Maths doesn’t change the thinking of the world because it sits off separate from it, undergoing it’s own revolutions that only match up in certain places, when maths-enabled leaps of logic enable people to suggest that time and space are relative, and yet we can still think about it. It takes those thoughts from the humming of a poem to the world of action. Only snag of course is those people who can use these leaps are few and far between, they haven’t got out into the mainstream.

Incidentally “Modern” scientific thinking that you are thinking of is not the scientific thinking of today! People having been kicking dull positivist observer-ignorant science’s ass for 50 years! Course it still exists, but variants on constructivism with it’s “justified illusions” paradigm have taken it’s place as the central viewpoint of science. Unlike the old rational progress myth, it doesn’t have much of a built in cause for the powerful to jump on, so they’ve been using economics as their justification instead, or did till a few months ago!

My own view is that this constructivist view can be expanded to refer to exactly what you said; by linking the idea of a justified understanding of the world to the idea of a healthy relationship; where you gain understanding of the other person/thing and ability to live together, and those feed into each other.

]]> By: Willem http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24985 Willem Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:27:52 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24985 Bill: Yes - I do wish to underscore that though they may describe the 'same' holistic understanding, <em>the way they describe it</em>seems to make all the difference in the world. On the one hand, increasing life with every generation, on the other, devouring the planet at an accelerating rate. This actually reminds me of Richard Dawkins, <a href="http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2008/09/14/the-difference/" rel="nofollow">and his offering of the "selfish gene" as evidence that we embody machines carrying the will of machines into eternity</a>. The Tzutujil Maya, with apparently the exact same observation, choose an entirely different (and world-preserving) interpretation. Abdullah: Ha ha. Excellent! Bill:
Yes - I do wish to underscore that though they may describe the ’same’ holistic understanding, the way they describe itseems to make all the difference in the world. On the one hand, increasing life with every generation, on the other, devouring the planet at an accelerating rate.

This actually reminds me of Richard Dawkins, and his offering of the “selfish gene” as evidence that we embody machines carrying the will of machines into eternity. The Tzutujil Maya, with apparently the exact same observation, choose an entirely different (and world-preserving) interpretation.

Abdullah:
Ha ha. Excellent!

]]> By: Abdallah B. Stickley http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24981 Abdallah B. Stickley Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:24:01 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24981 I encounter this alot in my work, too, and I have reached the same conclusion. As the old writing adage goes: show it, don't say it I encounter this alot in my work, too, and I have reached the same conclusion. As the old writing adage goes: show it, don’t say it

]]> By: Quantum Mechanics as a tool for non-physicists « CleaveFast http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24979 Quantum Mechanics as a tool for non-physicists « CleaveFast Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:53:17 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24979 [...] on August 17, 2009 at 10:52 am Some languages describe Quantum Mechanics better than others. English, apparently, doesn’t do this very well. Animist languages do it better. Mathematics does it best, [...] […] on August 17, 2009 at 10:52 am Some languages describe Quantum Mechanics better than others. English, apparently, doesn’t do this very well. Animist languages do it better. Mathematics does it best, […]

]]> By: Bill Maxwell http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24976 Bill Maxwell Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:37:23 +0000 http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2009/08/16/incommensurability/#comment-24976 What intrigues me is this: the "White Road" -- the path of 'death' that certain folks follow -- is an expert at breaking things down to microscopic bits to examine the world. And in the end, the conclusions that it reaches, in its most reductionist language (mathematics), is the same that a holistic path (such as the "Red Road") reaches. They may come to different observations but it appears they are observing the same phenomenon from two different points in the 'room.' :) What intrigues me is this: the “White Road” — the path of ‘death’ that certain folks follow — is an expert at breaking things down to microscopic bits to examine the world. And in the end, the conclusions that it reaches, in its most reductionist language (mathematics), is the same that a holistic path (such as the “Red Road”) reaches.

They may come to different observations but it appears they are observing the same phenomenon from two different points in the ‘room.’ :)

]]>