[FRIAM] Trapped in the house. Was: Seminal Papers in Complexity

[Phil Henshaw]

hmm, that set off a string.

or "rigorous" = "makes the catch" or "works" or "fails to be
self-deceiving" or "somehow manages to be real" or "actually
responsive".   The mind and imagery are so tremendously persuasive, so
very free, fluid and flexible in creating a beautiful seamless universe
from discordant evidence, it then also becomes most difficult for mind
and information to directly feel the direct physical resistance of
anything beyond themselves, as in a dreamworld.   It's like how an
artist learns to create a texture, by drawing the fluid of his pigments
with such responsive, delicate and yielding intuitive effort that he
draws the pigment itself to explode in color as a Van Gogh's sensitive
touch a starry night, not an evidence of control but of connection.
"rigorous" = "being able to feel what's real"   ;-)


Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040                       
tel: 212-795-4844                 
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    


> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com 
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:13 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trapped in the house. Was: Seminal 
> Papers in Complexity
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Robert Holmes wrote:
> > You are correct, your definition of a mathematician does not include
> > everyone; however it does include everyone you are likely to meet on
> > the street. Those who do not "attempt to form rigorous 
> conceptions of
> > the things around then and use those conceptions to interact the
> > world" often have difficulty getting out of their houses because (i)
> > they do not  (by definition) have a conception of where their
> > front-doors are and (ii) even if they do find them they 
> cannot (again
> > by the above definition) work out how to interact with them.
> 
> Buzz!  Thanks for playing. [grin]
> 
> Perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of "rigorous"?  
> "Rigor" means strict or rigid.  "Rigorous" means rigidly 
> accurate or precise.
> 
> I would posit that only a proper subset (odd how math keeps 
> creeping into the conversation) of people one is likely to 
> meet on the street is actually rigorous in their concepts.  
> And even fewer are rigorous in their application of their 
> concepts to the world.
> 
> I've met many many fuzzy-thinking people on the street.  I 
> presume you have too.  So, you're wrong.  My definition does 
> NOT include everyone you are likely to meet on the street.
> 
> My definition only includes those people who take their 
> jobs/roles seriously and make strong attempts to be good at 
> what they do.
> 
> Let's take skaters as an example.  Some of them are so 
> precise in their tacit understanding of their board, the 
> surfaces upon which they skate, and their own bodies that 
> they can perform stunts that would send the rest of us to the 
> hospital.  Then there are others who simply can't be that 
> rigorous, regardless of how often they try or how intently 
> they try to focus.
> 
> Now.  What does that say about the poor schlubs who can't skate very
> well?  Are they mathematicians?   Well, maybe not.  Or maybe they're
> just not good at that _type_ of math.  I.e. they are not good 
> at forming rigorous conceptions of skating.  But, they might 
> be excellent at some other form, e.g. writing enforceable 
> legislation or cooking.  There are plenty of people who are 
> excellent at formulating and manipulating some particular 
> formalisms but notoriously bad at others.
> 
> Then there are the people who don't seem to think clearly no 
> matter what domain they enter.  But there are other ways to 
> get your body to do things in a predictable way without 
> forming and applying rigorously developed conceptions.  Much 
> of what we do as animals is learned in the form of the more 
> primitive:  habit.  It is less about forming concepts and 
> more about receiving positive and negative feedback to govern 
> trial and error.  These people can not only get out of the 
> house; but, they can drive cars, work steady jobs, even hold 
> conversations.  But, they always fall back on knee-jerk 
> [re]actions to perverse or novel ideas, because knee-jerk 
> reactions work so well for them in their other activities.
> 
> Can one tell the difference between a mathematician and a 
> trial-by-error person?  I think so.  We often use words like 
> "professionalism", "competence", and "facile" to get at this boundary.
> 
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> Seek simplicity, and distrust it. -- Alfred North Whitehead
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFGgtLgZeB+vOTnLkoRAhfGAKCo/ZmpuzrViLa4o8Ja1ipV6xLfrgCg2v7m
> BsWB7molwLcDmNNRFLmJQ18=
> =2c/W
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> 
>