> Except that's another big difference in our sensiblities - as a good > progressive, you are a > relativist. There ain't no such thing as speaking good ;) >
I have a long thread with some guy on wittgenstein-dialognet (a Yahoo! group) about moral relativism, whether Wittgenstein was one, etc. He wasn't, nor am I, seems to be the upshot of that thread. > Synergetic geometry, as I hear it presented, is about space - but somehow > exists > outside of time. It popped into being - an otherwordly vision. No, Fuller casts his body of work as very time/size specific, his self-discipline, with a vocabulary that's deliberately remote and deliberately engineered. He even admits has central insights might all pre-exist in other literature. That being said, he's a born explorer and has the right to draw his map, which is what he did. I find it a very useful contribution, as I've said. He does more to interconnect the disciplines than most, and isn't writing as a geometer, specifically. I file it under Philosophy and/or Literature. It's a work in the humanities, maybe a liberal art in its own right (given how no department wants to claim it). > Maybe true. But in my view of what makes the study of math > meaningful, its math without much meaning, to the extent we are really > talking math > at all, rather than something not more like - American Unaccountable > Geniuses 101. > > Kay does make a good 102. > > It's a curriculum, yes. > > Art I'll file that under "from a guy who likes to have opinions" -- whether well-informed or no. If you ever undertake a serious study of Fuller's synergetics, maybe let me know. I could maybe offer a few pointers. Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
