<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">QWAN - Quality Without A Name - from Christopher Alexander, most prominently in his book <i>The Timeless Way of Building</i>. Got into Software world via the patterns community and the Gamma, Helm, Johnson, and Vlissides book, <i>Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Alexander claimed that some architecture exhibited QWAN and that it was cross-cultural and universally recognized. His last work — the four volume Nature of Order — replaced QWAN with "Liveness" which arises from fifteen properties: e.g. centers, boundaries, deep interlock and ambiguity, etc.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 4:34 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><div dir="auto"><div>Who knew this:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div style="max-height:999999px;color:rgb(60, 64, 67);font-family:roboto, helveticaneue, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto"><div style="max-height:999999px;"><div style="max-height:999999px;padding-top:1px;font-size:16px;line-height:20px;">Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined - YourDictionary<br></div></div></div><div style="max-height:999999px;color:rgb(60, 64, 67);font-family:roboto, helveticaneue, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);" dir="auto"><div style="max-height:999999px;padding-top:12px;padding-right:16px;padding-bottom:12px;padding-left:16px;"><div style="max-height:999999px;padding-top:1px;">qwan. Acronym. Quality Without A Name - in computer programming QWAN refers to a more metaphysical attribute that expresses elegancy of code.<br></div><div style="max-height:999999px;padding-top:1px;" dir="auto"><span style=""><span class="size" style="font-size:large;"></span></span><br></div><div style="max-height:999999px;padding-top:1px;" dir="auto"><span style=""><span class="size" style="font-size:large;">?</span></span><br></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><div>---<br></div><div>Frank C. Wimberly<br></div><div>505 670-9918<br></div><div>Santa Fe, NM<br></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="qt-gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="qt-gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 8:52 AM Steven A Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="qt-gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1px;padding-left:1ex;"><div><p>Dave -<br></p><p>I myself am having an ineffable experience just now, as my drive
through the big-rock country has taken on a Mad Max quality
(simile borrowed from a friend on his own Hellride back up the
coast of CA after retrieving his college son, with counties
closing down behind him as he rolls through). FWIW, I was pretty
close to your brother's place on this trip but didn't give over to
the thought of stopping by and asking if I could help dig an extra
bunker or two. Bunker rhymes with hunker.<br></p><p>I think your enumeration of "reasons" for "cannot express in
words" covers the space well, but as a self-referential example
naturally fails for many of the reasons you cite. It is rather
concise to reference "knowing ABOUT" vs "knowing", the biggest
failing I find amongst our discussions here on FriAM... perhaps
convenings of the Mother Church itself do better?<br></p><p>I am also reminded of JIddu Krishnamurti's "cousin", also a
Krishnamurti who, when asked of Jiddu's
knowledge/wisdom/perception reluctantly replied "Jiddu has held
the sugar cube in the palm of his hand, but he has not tasted it".<br></p><p>Context;SignVsSignifier;Incompleteness;Paradox;EtCetera<br></p><p>We have words/phrases LIKE ineffable;QWAN;<span>je
ne sais quois "for a reason" though circularly, said reason
cannot be described, merely "gestured in the direction of"?</span><br></p><p><span>Carry On,</span><br></p><p><span> - Steve</span><br></p><p><span>PS. The Sheriff shut down Durango just as
we slipped into a motel here and will be raiding *their* City
Market before we drive toward home... Gas tank is fullish,
within range I think, though fueling is not closed, just
virtually everything else. I will check for TP there out of
curiosity, but we have a dozen rolls at home unless our
house-sitter snatched them all for HER hoard. Time to start
raking, drying, sorting the cottonwood leaves methinks! Are
you sorry you are in Weesp rather than Utah for this incipient
"Jackpot"?</span><br></p><div>On 3/17/20 4:16 AM, Prof David West
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:Arial;">Hi Nick,<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">You are correct: I assert that you
can know things of which you cannot speak; but there is still
too much ambiguity in that statement. It would be more correct
to say: some experiences are not expressible in words. I am
making a narrow, but ubiquitous, claim — ubiquitous, because all
of us have a ton of experiences that we cannot express in words.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Another dimension of precision,
"cannot express in words" can mean: 1) we do not have enough
words; 2) we do not have the right words; 3) any expression in
words fails the capture the whole of the experience; 4)
translating the experience to words creates a conflict (e.g. a
paradox) in the words that was not present in the experience; 5)
words are mere symbols (pointers or representations) and never
the "thing" itself (Korzibski); 6) missing context; and/or 7)
the grammar of the language mandates untrue or less than true
assertions. Probably a few other ways that language fails.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">This is not to deny the
possibility of a language that could express some of these
experiences. We have myths of such languages; e.g. The language
of the birds that Odin used to communicate with Huggin and
Muninn. Maybe there is some element of fact behind the myths?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">It does not preclude using words
in a non-representational way to communicate. Words can be
evocative, recall to present experience, experiences past.
Poetry does this. Nor does it preclude non-verbal, e.g.
painting, as an evocative means of "bring to mind" experiences.
(There is a lot of evidence that evocation can bring to mind
experience that the construct called Nick did not itself
experience — evidence that led Jung to posit the "collective
unconscious.")<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">It is also quite possible to talk <b><u>about</u></b> experience rather than <b><u>of</u></b> experience. Mystics to this all the time, but always with the
caveat that what is said <b><u>about</u></b> IT is <b><u>not</u></b> IT.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">A specific example: Huxley talks
about "the Is-ness" of flower and the variability of Time.
Heidegger and his followers have written volumes <b><u>about</u></b> Is-ness and Time. One more: Whitehead and process philosophers
have written volumes <b><u>about</u></b> a dynamic, in constant
flux, Reality; that I have experience <b><u>of</u></b>.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, at 11:10 PM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt-m_5061399448111188269qt"><div><p>Yeah, Dave, I screwed it up by mixing
up “speaking of” and “knowing”.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>I would never expect that you would
sign up for a conversation about that of which we cannot
know. But, others at friam, if I understood them
correctly, HAVE tried to engage me in such a conversation. <br></p><p> <br></p><p>I think you would agree that that of
which we cannot speak, we cannot speak. [Tautology]<br></p><p> <br></p><p>And you also would agree that which we
cannot know we cannot know. [Another tautology}<br></p><p> <br></p><p>And I think it also follows that we
cannot speak of what we cannot know, since we would have no
basis on which to speak of it. <br></p><p>Well, except possibly to say we do not
know it, perhaps. I don’t want to die on that hill.<br></p><p> <br></p><p> <br></p><p>But you insist that the inverse is not
true. We can and do know things of which we cannot speak.
So we might be having a conversation about how to move such
things into the domain of speechable. Your goal, in that
case, would be as hunter, sent out into the domain of the
unspeakable to capture some specimen from that world and
drag it back. Think, again, Castenada.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Or, we might be having a conversation
about how we might transfer knowledge in ways other than
speech. You giving me a dose of some substance that you
have already had a dose of would seem to be of this second
sort. Think Don Juan.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Hastily,<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Nick<br></p><p>PS. Any philosopher that holds that
“knowledge” can only applied to true belief would not
understand this conversation because I think we share the
idea that there is probably no such thing as true belief in
that sense and that therefore you and I are always talking
about provisional knowledge, unless we are talking about an
aspiration we might share to arrive at that upon which the
community of inquiry will converge in the very long run. <br></p><p> <br></p><p> <br></p><div><p>Nicholas Thompson<br></p><p>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<br></p><p>Clark University<br></p><p><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><br></p><p><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><br></p><p><br></p><p> <br></p></div><p> <br></p><div><div style="border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225, 225);border-top-style:solid;border-top-width:1pt;padding-top:3pt;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;"><p><br></p><div><b>From:</b> Friam <a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Prof David West<br></div><div><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 16, 2020 2:58 PM<br></div><div><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">friam@redfish.com</a><br></div><div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork
from acid epistemology<br></div><p><br></p></div></div><p> <br></p><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">Nick,</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">The
only time that I have said something is "unknowable"
is referencing complex systems that some variables
and some relations among variables in a complex system
are literally unknowable. The context for such a
statement is computing / software / and software
engineering with a heavy timeline element. Pretty sure
it has never appeared on this list.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">What
I do say, and will repeat, there are things you can
know that you cannot articulate in language. There is
Experience of which you cannot speak.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">I
am pretty sure my assertion is 180 degree opposite of
what you think I may have been saying. Rest assured
that I would never assert that there are things that
are unknowable.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">What
needs care, and I have tried to do this, is to
consistently use the same vocabulary — in this case
experience. So I say there are experiences that cannot
be put into words. Some of those experiences are worth
experiencing.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">You
said "(Or speak of them which is the same thing.)"
Equating "knowing" with "speaking" is an error. Using
"knowing" and "experiencing" as synonyms is not.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;">davew</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p>On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, at 5:39 PM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt;" id="qt-m_5061399448111188269qt-qt"><div><p>Dave,<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Thanks for this. And it
goes very well most of the way, but there is one spot
where you persistently misunderstand me, and so I will
go directly to that:<br></p><p> <br></p><p style="margin-left:1in;">>
Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which <span style="color:black;background-color:yellow;background-repeat:repeat;background-image:none;background-size:auto;background-origin:padding-box;background-clip:border-box;">we</span> cannot<br></p><p style="margin-left:1in;">>
speak" is non-sense.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW**It is no, every<span style="color:black;background-color:yellow;background-repeat:repeat;background-image:none;background-size:auto;background-origin:padding-box;background-clip:border-box;">one</span> has experienced that of which they cannot speak. You can
know something and you can know about something. You can
know the experience of high or low insulin levels, you
can know a lot about insulin and diabetes. You can speak
about the latter knowledge, you cannot speak the former.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
BECAUSE I WANT TO GET THIS NAILED DOWN TODAY. The claim
that I am referring to, which I have heard made by my
colleague dualists, is not that there are things that I
know nothing of, or that you and I know nothing of, or
that at any finite grouping of human beings or cognitive
systems know nothing of. It is the claim that there
are things about which it is impossible to know, period,
and that yet, we should try to know them. (Or speak of
them, which is the same thing.) (Damn! I was just
induced to do it!) That is non-sense. Or a paradox.
Or both.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Now you might (others have)
insisted that while the statement is a logical paradox
(I would call paradoxes non-sense), the contemplation of
paradoxes might lead me to knowledge. I worry this
might even be one of the methods you prescribe when you
speak of a deep dive. If so, I guess I have a right to
ask (at least in Western Practice) what is the theory
that tells you that these methods will lead to truth or
wisdom, etc. <br></p><p> <br></p><p>Eric may enter the
conversation at this point and start to talk about
castles in the sky. We can build castles in the sky, and
talk about them, and even argue, from text, or logic,
about the color of the third turret to the right on the
north wall. And we might find a lot of inner peace and
sense of coherence by engaging in this sort of
“knowledge gathering” with others. But I think, if he
does, his claim will be irrelevant. Knowledge about
castles in the sky, however deeply codified, is fake
knowledge in the sense that it lacks the essential
element of claims of knowledge, which is the claim that,
in the fullness of time, the arc of inquiry bends to
the position that I or you are now asserting. Someday,
people will actually walk in its corridors and admire
its battlements. Kings and queens will reighn, here.
That is what a castle IS. <br></p><p> <br></p><p>Later in the day, when I
have gotten control of my morning covid19 anxiety, I
may try to lard your message below, but right now, I
hope to straighten out this particular
misunderstanding. When I speak of “we” who cannot know,
I am NOT referring to you and or me or any other finite
population of knowers, but to what can NOT known by all
cognitive systems in the far reach of time. I still
assert, despite your patient and kind argumentation,
that to speak of “our knowing” THAT is nonsense.
Actually, to speak of NOT knowing it, is nonsense,
also. It’s just logic, right? Mathematics. Tautology,
even. Even Frank would agree. RIGHT?<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Only when we have settled
on that logical point does it make sense to go on and
talk about how you, and I and Glen and Marcus are going
to come to know, that which we do not now know. <br></p><p> <br></p><p>Nick<br></p><p>Nicholas Thompson<br></p><p>Emeritus Professor of
Ethology and Psychology<br></p><p>Clark University<br></p><p><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><br></p><p><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><br></p><p> <br></p><p> <br></p><p> <br></p><div><p>-----Original Message-----<br></p></div><div><p>From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>>
On Behalf Of Prof David West<br></p></div><div><p>Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020
5:54 AM<br></p></div><div><p>To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">friam@redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science
privilege — fork from acid epistemology<br></p></div><p> <br></p><p>comments embedded.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at
5:26 PM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">thompnickson2@gmail.com</span></a> wrote:<br></p><p>> Dave and Glen,<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> It's great to see your
two frames coming into adjustment. At the risk<br></p><p>> of taking the
discussion back to absurdity, let me try to express, in<br></p><p>> laughably simple
terms, what I hear you guys agreeing to.<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> I have been taught a
way of thinking about science that is western. <br></p><p>> Like all ways of
thinking it both sights me and blinds me. Nobody<br></p><p>> knows everything;
everybody knows what they know. Nobody should<br></p><p>> presume to judge what
they don't know. I don't know Eastern ways of<br></p><p>> thinking. I have no
basis on which to claim privilege for my western<br></p><p>> ways of thinking about
science.<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Now, as a person who
has always delighted in attending discussions<br></p><p>> among people who do
not agree, and always fascinated by the<br></p><p>> possibility of
convergence of opinion, what do I do when Dave (or Kim,<br></p><p>> or others) highlight
the fact that there are whole ways of thinking<br></p><p>> that I just do not
know anything about?<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> One way would be to
shrug. AW heck, you go your way, I will go mine. I<br></p><p>> can't do that.
Shrugging is just not in my natire. I need to try to<br></p><p>> integrate discordant
ideas held by people I respect. Now, it is<br></p><p>> possible that need is,
in itself, Western. And what an eastern<br></p><p>> philosophy would tell
me is to put aside that need.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW** Eastern ways of
thinking would tell you to do a deep dive into that
need. You will never, so they would say, truly
understand your partial, Western, way of knowing absent
the ability to integrate that way of thinking into a
holistic mode of thinking.**DW<br></p><p> <br></p><p>Often<br></p><p>> developmental
psychologists among my acquaintances have asserted that<br></p><p>> my quest for agreement
is a kind of invasion of their mental<br></p><p>> territory, that each
person is entitled to his own individual and<br></p><p>> pristine experience.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW** and Eastern ways would
state that all "individual" and "pristine experience" is
purely an illusion, but there is a Reality behind that
illusion (no, not a Cartesian dualism — still
maintaining an experience monism here) — a One (shared)
behind the ones (individual).**DW<br></p><p> <br></p><p> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Let's say you come to
me and tell me that you hold in your hand an<br></p><p>> instrument of great
wisdom, a revolver. And if I will only put it to<br></p><p>> my head, and pull the
trigger, I will have knowledge and understanding<br></p><p>> beyond anything I can
now imagine. I would be reluctant to follow<br></p><p>> that advice. Is that
western?<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW**No that is universally
human common sense. And, as I am not in the habit of
encouraging people to kill themselves, such an offer
would never be extended.**DW<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Let's say, I say to
you that "to speak of that of which we cannot<br></p><p>> speak" is non-sense.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW**It is no, everyone has
experienced that of which they cannot speak. You can
know something and you can know about something. You can
know the experience of high or low insulin levels, you
can know a lot about insulin and diabetes. You can speak
about the latter knowledge, you cannot speak the former.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>I am baking bread and just
pulled the loaves out of the oven. I know when I have
kneaded the dough enough to get the consistence I want
in the final product but I cannot speak that knowledge.
I can speak of it — employing lots of metaphors — but
cannot speak it or communicate it directly**DW<br></p><p> <br></p><p>To say, as an occasional
member of the home<br></p><p>> congregation
occasionally says, "What if there is a world out there<br></p><p>> which is totally
beyond all forms of human understanding" is non-sense.<br></p><p>> As Wittgenstein says,
the beetle divides out. Is an Eastern<br></p><p>> philosopher going to
reply, "Ah Nick, such a paradox is not non-sense<br></p><p>> but the beginning of
wisdom."<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW**be careful of word
games — be true to your experience monism. Suppose, at
my next FriAM I say to you, you know Nick there are
'experiences' that are beyond 'understanding'. There are
many ways to interpret that sentence. I could be saying
something like "You will experience death. Do you
understand it? Will you understand it once you
experience it? The latter is tough, because in your
Western way of thinking, death is the end and it is
certain that "you" will no longer be extant to
understand anything. ——Interesting question: will "you"
actually experience death or is death a non experience
because there is no experiencer? —— The Tibetan Book of
the Dead is premised on the certainty that "you" will
experience death, find it rather terrifying, and could
use some expert guidance on how to navigate the
experience.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>In stating that there is
experience beyond understanding, I might be merely
asserting that there are no words or phrases that
adequately represent the totality of the experience and
if 'understanding' requires linguistic, symbolic, or
algorithmic expression than 'understanding' is
impossible.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>There are other possible
"meanings" in the phrase "experience beyond
understanding," but for later. **DW<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Or perhaps, the
eastern philosopher would say, No, No, Nick, you have<br></p><p>> it all wrong. If you
seek that sense of convergence, go for it<br></p><p>> directly. Don't argue
with dave and Glen, hug them, drink with them,<br></p><p>> play Russian
roulette. What you seek cannot be found with words!<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW**You will have to play
Russian Roulette by yourself, I'll not participate. I
will accept the hug and a drink. I'll even share a slice
of the warm bread I just made. Delicious even if I am
the only one saying so.<br></p><p> <br></p><p>I am pretty certain the the
revolver of which you speak is a euphemism for
psychedelics. If so, it is a particularly bad metaphor,
one that might express your fears — fears that ALL
empirical evidence confirm are unfounded — than it is of
the actual use/experience. [Caveat: there are some
instances were the psychedelic provides a tipping point
for a psychological ill effect, and overdoses can damage
the physiology — but "ordinary" use of psylocibin,
mescaline, DMT, and LSD cause no harm of any form.]**DW<br></p><p> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> If what we have
encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are<br></p><p>> we talking?<br></p><p> <br></p><p>DW**The Limit of Discourse
is, at minimum, when all possible permutations of the
600,000 words in the Oxford English Dictionary, have
been exchanged and we still lack agreement/convergence.
But, then we would have to consider all the other
Natural Languages (maybe even those like the one found
in the Voinich Manuscript), all of art and music, and
body language. Metaphor adds yet another dimension that
would need to be taken into consideration.**DW<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Nick<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Nicholas Thompson<br></p><p>> Emeritus Professor of
Ethology and Psychology Clark University<br></p><p>> <a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a> <a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> -----Original
Message-----<br></p><p>> From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">friam-bounces@redfish.com</span></a>>
On Behalf Of u?l? ?<br></p><p>> Sent: Saturday, March
14, 2020 8:28 AM<br></p><p>> To: FriAM <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">friam@redfish.com</span></a>><br></p><p>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
science privilege — fork from acid epistemology<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> FWIW, I agree
completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The<br></p><p>> lost opportunity is
implicit in the ebb and flow of collective<br></p><p>> enterprises. Similar
opportunity costs color the efforts of any large<br></p><p>> scale enterprise. I
can't blame science or scientists for their lost<br></p><p>> opportunities because
triage is necessary [†]. But there is plenty of<br></p><p>> kinship for you out
there. I saw this the other day:<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> Your Mind is an
Excellent Servant, but a Terrible Master - David<br></p><p>> Foster Wallace<br></p><p>> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o</span></a><br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> I'm tempted to dive
into particulars on your examples (Vedic, Buddhist,<br></p><p>> Hermetics). But my
contributions would be laughable. I'll learn from<br></p><p>> any contributions I
hope others make. I've spent far too little of my<br></p><p>> life in those domains.<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> [†] Both for the
individual trying to decide what to spend their life<br></p><p>> researching and the
whole (as Wolpert points out<br></p><p>> <<a href="https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf</span></a>>).<br></p><p>> Most of the prejudice
I encounter doesn't seem mean-spirited, though.<br></p><p>> Even virulent
scientismists seem to be victims of their own,
personally<br></p><p>> felt, opportunity
costs.<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> On 3/14/20 3:21 AM,
Prof David West wrote:<br></p><p>> > Glen, I really
appreciate your response and insights.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > You are certainly
correct that much, or most, of my pique is simply
impatience. But, I am here now, with these questions,
and with a limited window within which to be patient.
Should my great grandchildren have my interests, Science
might serve them well, but is is frustrating right now.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > Science is far
more reflective that I generally give it credit for.
Your examples, save one, illustrate that. The one that I
object to is "assessing scientific literacy" which,
based on limited exposure, seems to be more of "checking
to see if you are bright enough to agree with us" than
evaluating what it would mean to be scientifically
literate.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > A closely
related, I think, topic is the push by computer science
to have "computational thinking" embedded in elementary
and secondary education as "essential." Computational
thinking is exactly the wrong kind of thinking as most
of the critical things we need to think about are not
algorithmic in nature. The scientific and computational
part of the climate crisis is the easy part. figuring
out the complex social-cultural-economic-politcal
answers to the problem is the hard part and I doubt it
is reducible to scientific thinking and absolutely
positive it is not amenable to computational thinking.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > Maybe when Hari
Seldon has his psychohistory all worked out it will be<br></p><p>> > different. :)<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > It may very well
be possible to develop a science of philosophy, but it
will require relinquishing what, again to me, appears to
be a double standard. Scientists are willing to wax
philosophical about quantum interpretations but would,
99 times out of a hundred, reject out of hand any
discussion of the cosmological philosophy in the
Vaisesika Sutras — despite the fact that that
Schrodinger says the idea for superposition came from
the Upanishads.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > George Everest
(the mountain is named after him) introduced Vedic
teachings on math and logic to George Boole, Augustus de
Morgan, and Charles Babbage; shaping the evolution of
Vector Analysis, Boolean Logic, and a whole lot of math
behind computer science.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > One could make a
very strong argument that most of the Science that<br></p><p>> > emerged in
England in the 1800-2000, including Newton, was derived<br></p><p>> > from Vedic and
some Buddhist philosophies. But try to get a Ph.D. in<br></p><p>> > any science today
with a dissertation proposal that incorporated<br></p><p>> > Akasa. [The Vedas
posited five elements as the constituents of the<br></p><p>> > universe —
Aristotle's four, earth, air, fire, water, plus Akasa,<br></p><p>> > which is
consciousness.]<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > Swami Vivekananda
once explained Vedic philosophical ideas about the
relationship between energy and matter to Nicholas
Tesla. Tesla tried for years to find the equation that
Einstein came up with much later. Try to get a research
grant for something like that.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > A practical
question: how would one go about developing a "science"
of the philosophy of Hermetic Alchemy and its 2500
years of philosophical investigation. Information,
perhaps deep insights, that was tossed out the window
simply because some pseudo-alchemists tried to con
people into thinking that lead could be turned into
gold.<br></p><p>> ><br></p><p>> > Of course the
proposal for developing such a science would have to be
at least eligible for grants and gaining tenure, or it
is not, in a practicial (take note Nick) sense.<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> --<br></p><p>> <span><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji", sans-serif;">☣</span></span></span></span> uǝlƃ<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>>
============================================================<br></p><p>> FRIAM Applied
Complexity Group listserv<br></p><p>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30
at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe<br></p><p>> <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><br></p><p>> archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><br></p><p>> FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p><p>> <br></p><p>> <br></p><p>>
============================================================<br></p><p>> FRIAM Applied
Complexity Group listserv<br></p><p>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30
at cafe at St. John's College<br></p><p>> to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><br></p><p>> archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><br></p><p>> FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p><p>> <br></p><p> <br></p><p>============================================================<br></p><p>FRIAM Applied Complexity
Group listserv<br></p><p>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
cafe at St. John's College<br></p><p>to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><br></p><p>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><br></p><p>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:windowtext;">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div><div><p>============================================================<br></p></div><div><p>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group
listserv<br></p></div><div><p>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at
St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p>to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div></blockquote><div><p><span><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><br></p></div></div><div>============================================================<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div>to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></div><div>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr.
Strangelove<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div><br></div><pre>============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove
<br></pre></blockquote></div><div>============================================================<br></div><div> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div> to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></div><div> archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></div><div> FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></div></blockquote></div><div>============================================================<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div>to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br></div><div>archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>