[FRIAM] knowing

[Prof David West]

Thanks for your comments. I understand and agree with part, but not all.

Agreememt: the division of analysis/decomposition and synthesis/composition. One of my favorite sci-fi books was Rite of Passage by Alexi Panshin. The two protagonists aspired to defined roles in their context: one was "ordinologist" the other "synthesist." The first was the person with the skills to organize and structure knowledge - like books and artifacts within a room. The latter was the person who could wander from room to room and know that "X" would make a huge contribution if moved to this other room, or these things from separate rooms should be clustered in this new room (and the ordinologist drop by to organize them of course).

Divergence: I believe we have an educational system, especially at the University level, that does an adequate job of producing ordinologists (scholars) but is woefully inadequate when it comes to producing synthesists. And, of course, I believe there would be value in producing some.

Orthogonal: status accretion. The first thing I thought of when reading your post was a favorite Plato quote:

*"[First,] perceiving and bringing together under one Idea the scattered particulars, so that one makes clear the thing which he wishes to do... [Second,] the separation of the Idea into classes, by dividing it where the natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of as a bad carver... I love these processes of division and bringing together, and if I think any other man is able to see things that can naturally be collected into one and divided into many, him I will follow as if he were as a god."*

This seems to have some flavor of your status concern. But, is it not the case that there is a spectrum of individual difference in both aptitude and ability in this taking apart and putting together? And if we could move individual from one end of that spectrum towards the other, would that not be a good thing?

Of course the artificial status you speak of is very real and undeserved: there is no evidence that Jobs or Musk are farther along the spectrum than anyone else so why are they treated as if that was so? [There is clear evidence that the Kardashians are farther along the steatopygic spectrum than most and if that is a claim to fame/status, then it is deserved.]

Missed (I think) Point: Is there any value in being able to comprehend/understand an ineffable thing, like Cantor's Absolute? Is that value, if any, exclusively enjoyed by the individual? Or, is there some possible group/social value? if the latter, would it be desirable if more people in the group could achieve that understanding/comprehension?

BTW, with regard Plato. I know I am better than he was, so I do not mind at all that he would deem me a god.

davew



On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, at 2:37 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> What you're talking about seems to be the exercise of composition and 
> decomposition. While it's true that analysis (the cutting up) and 
> synthesis (the clumping together) are necessary but insufficient in 
> themselves, none of us actually ever do just one of them. I guess what 
> the more analytically inclined mystics like Cantor come to is simply 
> that 2nd order perspective, that the *practice* of both analysis and 
> synthesis are necessary to any "large" insight. (We know Tarski, Gödel, 
> and von Neumann understood this, too.)
> 
> So, to your questions: 1) No, because we all do this already. Any 
> distinction between polymath and ordinary prole[⛧] is an artificial 
> one. We, each one of us, are already gods. What people like Jobs (or 
> Musk or Kardashian or whoever) accrete over time is the exogenous 
> *attribution* of guru status. Why does it accrete? My guess is our 
> co-evolutionary culture rewards particular traits. The Guru of Navel 
> Gazing simply doesn't accrete so much attention. >8^D So, you're 
> basically asking would there be practical value to enculturating a 
> cadre of Gwyneth Paltrows? Yes, the practical value is to get rich. And 
> we already do that ... unfortunately.
> 
> I have a similar answer to (2). If "should" is a moral imperative, then 
> no. We ought NOT encourage cults of celebrity ... gurus who sexually 
> abuse their followers or make their workers sleep on cots near their 
> workstations or hire expensive union-busting lawyers to avoid treating 
> employees like humans [⛤]. But if "should" is (as I use it) "expected 
> to obtain", then of course we expect celebrities and gurus to accrete 
> status and exploit the world for their gain, because we've done so 
> throughout history and continue to do so today.
> 
> [⛧] I'm trying to decide if I want to stop using "plebe" and start 
> using "prole" ... so many lovely words.
> [⛤] 
> https://peoplesdispatch.org/2021/03/05/week-long-boycott-of-amazon-planned-over-union-busting-attempts-in-alabama/
> 
> On 3/9/21 12:13 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> > A common thread — or imagined connection — in my recent reading concerns the "unknowable."  Examples include Cantor's Absolute, God, Infinity/Infinitesimal, the Soul, Gnosticism; and somewhat related notions like being a polymath or "genius." The latter comes from readings about Steve Jobs.
> > 
> > The genius/polymath connection is a state of mind where you can "see" holistically but non consciously, a gestalt and from that 'point of view' able to make correct/optimal/appropriate decisions based on incomplete and conflicting information.
> > 
> > The other 'unknowables' are also 'wholes' that can be grasped/comprehended/known only as a whole. You cannot arrive at such an understanding via the typical rational/scientific/logical positivist approach to learning and knowing. Knowledge of such things comes only via "mysticism" e.g. enlightenment.
> > 
> > The assertions about how you might come to know such wholes are not exclusively from mystics. Cantor, for example, seemed to believe (others know him far better than I and might correct me here) that you could "know" the Absolute, you just could not 'come to know' by accreting and integrating parts into the whole - i.e. "rationally."
> > 
> > A lot has been written about procedures to train yourself to be open to and accepting of moments of holistic, mystical, insight/enlightenment. Other, semi-practical, descriptions of 'pre-conditions' to be satisfied if one is to be a Job's type 'genius' or what the business press calls a modern polymath — i.e. conversant in multiple disciplines / areas of knowledge with variable deep knowledge among several; all with a semi or non-conscious integrative layer.
> > 
> > It is also possible to find ideas philosophies of education that attempt to focus on how to acquire / impart this kind of polymathic/integrative/holistic mindset (state of mind).
> > 
> > All this leads to some related questions: 1) would there be sufficient practical value from having a large cadre of "modern polymaths" / inciteful "geniuses" such that a significant portion of our educational system would be devoted to the enculturation (not education) of that cadre; 2) should a role in governance of any type at any level be restricted to members of that cadre (variation of Plato's philosopher kings); and, could people be guided/enculturated to have the ability to "know" "unknowable" things like Cantor's Absolute?
> > 
> > Idle raving on a Tuesday morning while I am supposed to be writing a book chapter on software development. Excuse all the quotes and parends — vocabulary is difficult for me in this realm.
> > 
> > davew
> 
> 
> -- 
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210309/a81ce731/attachment-0001.html>