Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
One doesn't seek to "study" the science of some imagined phenomenon, for instance, how are the fighting armies in the Lord of the Rings sustained? Reading about the history of ancient warfare paints a very different narrative of what that is like. In my opinion LotR would have been a lot more interesting bringing that in... but then I'm a geek, not a writer of romantic fiction.
Writing fiction normally entails trusting the reader, explicitly.This is especially true in the writing of short stories, in which the inclusion of too much supporting detail and the story suddenly becomes noticeably asymmetrical, as well as perhaps no longer being short. Such a situation can often result in somewhat of a dodgy predicament for the writer, especially in character development, when the storyteller must fight the temptation (or even ,obligation) to explain and describe in too much length and detail. This is crucial in the short story. Again, the solution is always to be found in trusting the reader.
This all can be thought of as pointing out the impressionistic element in much of fiction writing. Storytelling, in its general flow ,is intrinsically low definition, inviting the reader ,as it were, to complete the image by participating in some fundamental sensory way-- like old TV images or paintings by Renoir.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2016 - 11:54am PT
|
The problem, Ed, is that when you try and put words in my mouth, they are always yours, and almost always wrong per my actual views.
The quote about scientific silos (written BY a scientist) was not cited to try and put a limit on how far you can apply your personal quantifications, or those of your discipline, rather to point out the fact, in a general way, that all points of view necessity leave out other crucial points of view, and that that one pov cannot claim comprehensive knowledge of reality when they are looking are things from a proscribed perspective. Granted, we leave out what we think is needless or dead wood. Such as - a psycholoist is not going to start talking about atoms when the presenting problem is infidelity. So the issue is what gets left out, and the real trap of leaving out the crucial elements and not knowing as much, based on looking at reality from a given silos.
It is not lost on the subtle reader that you are implying special status to your personal field of expertise, citing examples of novels and fiction to insinuate that all others perspectives are imaginary. I'll leave that one for you to bicker over with others. your you to bicker with others might take that angle seriously. I no longer do. It simply adds nothing to the investigation of mind.
For my money, there really is one sticking point. There are two seemingly distinct realms - objective and subjective. I've learned that it does not and probably cannot lead to a comprehensive view of mind so long as someone is drawing from one well. In fact it is astonishing to think that I would, for instance, have some special knowledge per, say, biology, simply because I live in the physical world, or likewise, I would have penetrating insight into the 1st person realm simply because I live, like all of us, inside the subjective bubble.
What's more, and this is indisputable, attempts to posit reality in the round from one or the other perspective leads to the most pitiful mouthfuls of woo from the subjective camp, and the most jackass howlers from the objective camps - "You only think you have subjective experience." Or talking about Turing machines or space probes in terms of their "awareness."
But rather than argue these points, which doesn't lead to any new knowledge, I now concentrate on the things I believe that do.
I'll have something ready in this regards shortly.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
An example of scientists/engineers not looking at the whole picture.
Storage tanks for computer chip manufacturing storing MEK (methyl Ethel ketone) made out of metal buried in high groundwater tidal influenced area (san jose). Tanks corrode and MEK enters the groundwater. Where were the chemists who are involved with the MEK and the chip making? They would have recognized that metal tanks and salt water or any groundwater would be a bad idea. probably a mechanical engineer designed the manufacturing setup that included the tanks in groundwater.
It is difficult to see outside your expertise.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
For my money, there really is one sticking point. There are two seemingly distinct realms - objective and subjective. I've learned that it does not and probably cannot lead to a comprehensive view of mind so long as someone is drawing from one well
This is indeed the sticking point. Although I usually side with the scientists on this thread, JL has a point that no amount of existing argument has clarified. And a continued discourse amongst the various experts here will probably be fruitless. So here is my suggestion (which I have little faith will be accepted):
Instead of bantering back and forth between two ends of a spectrum, consider looking into a correspondence between these polar regions, rather than attempting to bring them together as a single path of investigation. A tool for this approach lies in elementary topology, a mathematical area characterized by the notion that one who practices therein cannot tell the difference between a coffee cup and a doughnut. JL’s Prodigies at one time wrongly described this subject as a study in geometry. In fact, topology is astoundingly universal and has little to do with geometrical objects.
Topology, in the elementary sense – beyond which I have no expertise – involves two sets of “objects”, a concept of an “open set”, and a continuous function or transformation relating a point in one set with a point in the other. Regarding the coffee cup, think of a doughnut made of a plastic deformable clay and manipulate this object until it becomes a coffee cup with a closed loop handle.
In the present discussion, “objects” in one set, say experiential adventures, “correspond” with “objects” in the second set, say electro-chemical processes. So that there is a correlation between JL’s experience of open awareness while meditating and certain brain processes. They are not the same and never will be, but if you slightly alter one, the other will be altered a bit. There is a mysterious continuous linkage between the two, so that in a sense the coupled entity exists as a kind of merging of the two areas of investigation.
The mysterious function becomes a focus of attention and conceptualization, rather than attempts to explain the subjective experience purely in terms of neuroscience. Both these areas continue to reveal themselves as scientists and psychologists and meditators continue their inquiries, but as the structure of the relating function materializes a meta-perspective may evolve.
One would start by defining “open sets” in such a way that any union of these would again be “open” and any finite intersection would be “open.” Also, the entire space of each set would be considered “open” as would the empty set. Once these preliminaries are in place, the notion of a bi-continuous function would be studied, one that would relate open sets to open sets.
Lots more, but that’s enough for now.
Or, subjective vs objective or first person vs third person will continue to be, as it has been, a delightful excursion into the void of the internet.
;>)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Very intriguing, jgill. How would a correspondence compare to an isomorphism?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
From Wiki:
"In topology, where the morphisms are continuous functions, isomorphisms are also called homeomorphisms or bicontinuous functions."
I'm surprised this correspondence between sub and obj hasn't been explored before. Maybe it has? The main idea would be to concentrate on the relationship between the two categories rather than try to argue separately. Over time the meta-view via the homeomorphism might become key to understanding the whole kit and caboodle, opening up a new perspective.
Or we can go back to argueing first person vs third person, which seems like a never-ending philosophical discussion leading nowhere. This way both camps can continue their quests independently, but under the umbrella of a unifying principle.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Topology is sometimes called "mathematics without numbers" although this is misleading. In sub vs obj, the homeomorphism might be surprisingly data-free, requiring basically a notion that a small change in one set corresponds to a small change in the other.
This would open a door for JL and MikeL as well as Andy and Ed, with expertise on both sides of the "divide" providing suggestions.
Oh well, maybe swamp gas is a better way to go . . .
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
It seems to me there are implications in the subjective that science finds anathema to its method and likewise for any purely objective interpretation for philosophy.
But isn’t there some validity in both understandings of mind?
The efficacy of personal experience isn’t always ignored by science. A visit to the dentist with tooth pain in which the sufferer declares, “I am in pain.” Requires the scientist/dentist to recognize the validity of the “I” and the certainty of experience. The dentist rarely says I can’t believe your subjective experience of pain as its simply an interior literary device that is at best illusory.
On the other hand mind certainly seems to emanate from the corporeal structure of the brain. The curious questions for me are how/why is mind a product of a structured rule driven universe that allows and prohibits? Can/does mind exist in structures that are not what we would call brains? Does mind exist in varying degrees within different entities? What is the relationship of “Knowing” to mind?
Curious, mysterious stuff.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Can/does mind exist in structures that are not what we would call brains?
Yes. It exists, or once existed, as matter/energy constituents, albeit in an unassembled state.
Nature, in its "dumb cradles" put these constituents together.
Took a long,long time though.
The recipe instructions operated entirely free of this mind until relatively very recently.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
The recipe instructions operated entirely free of this mind until relatively very recently.
I agree completely and find the implications of such a notion mysterious and fascinating.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Short stories do not rely on symmetry,
Oh yes they do. A very tight symmetry. This is precisely what makes them short stories. They are like pro body builders , very low fat, a lot of muscle.
The Renoir comparison is apt. A short story is more like Renoir and less like Seurat.
I agree completely and find the implications of such a notion mysterious and fascinating.
So do I.
Hey, Sycorax, give us the "dumb cradles" line by Shakespeare.
What play was that?
Never mind I found it:
Is that a wonder?
The providence that's in a watchful state
Knows almost every grain of Plutus' gold,
Finds bottom in the uncomprehensive deeps,
Keeps place with thought and almost, like the gods,
Does thoughts unveil in their dumb cradles
SCENE III. The Grecian camp. Before Achilles' tent.
Troilus and Cressida
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2016 - 05:50pm PT
|
You're onto something, John. I hope you pursue it. I never got past numbers theory in "maths," as the English say, so I would only flub a formal presentation using set theory, which I barely brushed up against like 200 years ago.
I have found that a way forward is to contrast both camps in turn, sticking with the age old Socratic method. It is amazing what this turns up per basic assumptions and so forth. Like I said earlier, I'll have something to present in a bit.
And Ward, "symmetry" in its normal usage refers to harmonious proportion and balance. But you shouldn't think that a short story works more better if it is symmetrical as a Grecian urn or an equation. And the lack of suet on a short narrative is not the same chingadera as the symmetry you praise. That's just the art of ridding the clutter.
Superfluid tales read well but are often predictable. Maupassant is a good example, though "Ball of String" and the story about the faux pearl necklace are otherwise.
I think what you are driving at is thematic connections, that a story causally and logically and emotionally adds up. The problem is that experience (the subject of literary narratives) often does NOT add up or even make sense. It takes a genius to base a story on this principal, but some can, and few of such stories are symmetrical.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Well, let's not overstate the symmetrical thing. I originally brought up the idea of asymmetricality only in relation to the inclusion of too much supporting detail, which can often result in a feeling of disproportion and irrelevancy to the reader. This sort of asymmetrical distorting effect is never a good thing in a tightly written form like a short story.
Overall symmetry nevertheless is a beautiful thing, whether in music or literature. The reader is always drawn to the proper proportions -- a lot like the listener to a Bach SATB chorale piece; without necessarily understanding the underlying scaffolding to which the dynamic parts are in harmonious relationship. A story can appear as ragged as hell on the surface and yet still contain all the right things in all the right places.
It's no more complicated than that, themes and "suet" notwithstanding.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The problem, Ed, is that when you try and put words in my mouth, they are always yours, and almost always wrong per my actual views.
I've noticed the same thing with you...
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
A promising start, JL and Ed.
Now we need a continuous mapping with a continuous inverse function.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2016 - 08:46pm PT
|
Ed, you're right.
And so are you, Ward. Because short stories are my poison of choice, I've read and still read them like mad and work on them compulsively. And the tight, smooth, bullets that flow and blow holes though our conceptions are truly beautiful constructions. However some atonal voltage is needed for flavor. Some stumbling, jagged edges, loose ends and dangling sh#t.
The best part about the craft, for me, is that I am always trying new forms that are slightly beyond my skill set, so I never really know what I am doing. So it's always an adventure.
The great thing about writing for 40 years is that I know what doesn't work, at least for me - like hammering too hard, garish words, landscape descriptions longer than one line, evaluating what I am saying in the body of the narrative, forwards, conclusions, anything overwrought, needless, fancy, pretentious (in the voicing, not the characters), exposition of any kind, or going on too long. And I've done all of these things till the cows come home.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Base: If it [a soul] is indeed "magic," then it can't be examined.
Well, if by “examined” you mean discretely analyzed with measures and all, then that might be a fair assessment. If you mean “observed” and “investigated,” then it may be no different than anything else that is immaterial and non-physical. (The list is long.)
There are objects, to include experience, which haven’t yet been discretely analyzed, but that doesn’t preclude us from talking about them, pointing to them, even writing sonnets about them. Materialism is a view, a vision, a way or approach to seeing. Mathematics is another. Ethics is another. Aesthetics is another. Magic is another. Instinct and emotion are others, too, . . . even though we are not quite sure what they are experientially.
During the annual Fall show of the colors, you could drive through the Finger Lake region of upstate New York and say that you were moving among starch-enriched, tall, deciduous plants, but would that be descriptive of most people’s experience?
It truly depends upon how you see, Base. How you see determines what you see. That “how” has been what meditation and other practices mean to expose. Most of the processes tend to be underground, hidden, some are seemingly unconscious until you begin to look closely.
Largo:
Moooo.
Jgill:
Your suggestion about correspondences between different fields of study or view is careful and even elegant. As seems typical for this kind of approach, you’ve started simple with just two different objects in two different sets. You’re positing some associations between two open sets. Then you say that once that’s been shown, in time then a meta-perspective may evolve (from noticing more correspondences between more open sets?).
It’s my experience that once you start down this road, you will notice two things. One, you will find that the degree of correspondence between any two sets that are not identical will lead to far less than explanation than you would hope for if accuracy is important. (If it’s not, then what you have is a simple theory.) Two, you will find yourself compelled to start adding more open sets. The explanative power of that move will increase, but not nearly as much as you would hope. In the last analysis, you will realize that you will have to add all open sets to get to a full explanation, and neither the move nor the effect seems possible.
As you surely know, this is what we do in scientific studies. We come up with stick-men abstractions that are at best characterizations or metaphors or close approximations of what we are interested in. I’m afraid that’s it.
This “problem” of the nondual nature of reality is no menial analytical problem. I disagree with Ed. The disciplinary silo problem that Metcalf refers to not simply that people don’t have enough training or education in many different fields. The fields just don’t *go together.* As Metcalf intimates, each field has different language, different theories, different approaches, different objectives, and of course different conversations that are of different interests professionally. The domains of knowledge are incommensurate (Polyani, Wittgenstein). There is no scientific field of study called, “Everything”—not even systems theory, which tends to be bereft of context and hence somewhat sterile.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
And so are you, Ward. Because short stories are my poison of choice, I've read and still read them like mad and work on them compulsively. And the tight, smooth, bullets that flow and blow holes though our conceptions are truly beautiful constructions. However some atonal voltage is needed for flavor. Some stumbling, jagged edges, loose ends and dangling sh#t.
I agree wholeheartedly. Excellent post.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...scientific field of study called, “Everything”
it's referred to as physics...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2016 - 02:41pm PT
|
...scientific field of study called, “Everything”
------
With one caveat: Every "thing" (external physical object and phenomenon) as viewed directly from a 3rd person perspective. This is what physics is especially good at. We are asking too much from physics to expect more from this proscribed field of study, though many would argue their point, based, of course ... on their field of study = scientific silos.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!