Who knew this: Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined - YourDictionary <https://www.yourdictionary.com/qwan> qwan. Acronym. Quality Without A Name - in computer programming QWAN refers to a more metaphysical attribute that expresses elegancy of code.
? --- Frank C. Wimberly 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 8:52 AM Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Dave - > > 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. > > 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? > > 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". > > Context;SignVsSignifier;Incompleteness;Paradox;EtCetera > > We have words/phrases LIKE ineffable;QWAN;je ne sais quois "for a reason" > though circularly, said reason cannot be described, merely "gestured in the > direction of"? > > Carry On, > > - Steve > > 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"? > On 3/17/20 4:16 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > 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. > > 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. > > 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? > > 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.") > > It is also quite possible to talk *about* experience rather than *of* > experience. Mystics to this all the time, but always with the caveat that > what is said *about* IT is *not* IT. > > A specific example: Huxley talks about "the Is-ness" of flower and the > variability of Time. Heidegger and his followers have written volumes > *about* Is-ness and Time. One more: Whitehead and process philosophers > have written volumes *about* a dynamic, in constant flux, Reality; that I > have experience *of*. > > davew > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, at 11:10 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yeah, Dave, I screwed it up by mixing up “speaking of” and “knowing”. > > > > 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. > > > > I think you would agree that that of which we cannot speak, we cannot > speak. [Tautology] > > > > And you also would agree that which we cannot know we cannot know. > [Another tautology} > > > > 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. > > Well, except possibly to say we do not know it, perhaps. I don’t want to > die on that hill. > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Hastily, > > > > Nick > > 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. > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On > Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2020 2:58 PM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology > > > > > Nick, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > davew > > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, at 5:39 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Dave, > > > > 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: > > > > > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot > > > speak" is non-sense. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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? > > > > 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. > > > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West > > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 5:54 AM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology > > > > comments embedded. > > > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at 5:26 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Dave and Glen, > > > > > > It's great to see your two frames coming into adjustment. At the risk > > > of taking the discussion back to absurdity, let me try to express, in > > > laughably simple terms, what I hear you guys agreeing to. > > > > > > I have been taught a way of thinking about science that is western. > > > Like all ways of thinking it both sights me and blinds me. Nobody > > > knows everything; everybody knows what they know. Nobody should > > > presume to judge what they don't know. I don't know Eastern ways of > > > thinking. I have no basis on which to claim privilege for my western > > > ways of thinking about science. > > > > > > Now, as a person who has always delighted in attending discussions > > > among people who do not agree, and always fascinated by the > > > possibility of convergence of opinion, what do I do when Dave (or Kim, > > > or others) highlight the fact that there are whole ways of thinking > > > that I just do not know anything about? > > > > > > One way would be to shrug. AW heck, you go your way, I will go mine. I > > > can't do that. Shrugging is just not in my natire. I need to try to > > > integrate discordant ideas held by people I respect. Now, it is > > > possible that need is, in itself, Western. And what an eastern > > > philosophy would tell me is to put aside that need. > > > > 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 > > > > Often > > > developmental psychologists among my acquaintances have asserted that > > > my quest for agreement is a kind of invasion of their mental > > > territory, that each person is entitled to his own individual and > > > pristine experience. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Let's say you come to me and tell me that you hold in your hand an > > > instrument of great wisdom, a revolver. And if I will only put it to > > > my head, and pull the trigger, I will have knowledge and understanding > > > beyond anything I can now imagine. I would be reluctant to follow > > > that advice. Is that western? > > > > 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 > > > > > > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot > > > speak" is non-sense. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > > > To say, as an occasional member of the home > > > congregation occasionally says, "What if there is a world out there > > > which is totally beyond all forms of human understanding" is non-sense. > > > As Wittgenstein says, the beetle divides out. Is an Eastern > > > philosopher going to reply, "Ah Nick, such a paradox is not non-sense > > > but the beginning of wisdom." > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > There are other possible "meanings" in the phrase "experience beyond > understanding," but for later. **DW > > > > > > Or perhaps, the eastern philosopher would say, No, No, Nick, you have > > > it all wrong. If you seek that sense of convergence, go for it > > > directly. Don't argue with dave and Glen, hug them, drink with them, > > > play Russian roulette. What you seek cannot be found with words! > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > If what we have encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are > > > we talking? > > > > 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 > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > > > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > > > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 8:28 AM > > > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology > > > > > > > > > FWIW, I agree completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The > > > lost opportunity is implicit in the ebb and flow of collective > > > enterprises. Similar opportunity costs color the efforts of any large > > > scale enterprise. I can't blame science or scientists for their lost > > > opportunities because triage is necessary [†]. But there is plenty of > > > kinship for you out there. I saw this the other day: > > > > > > Your Mind is an Excellent Servant, but a Terrible Master - David > > > Foster Wallace > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o > > > > > > I'm tempted to dive into particulars on your examples (Vedic, Buddhist, > > > Hermetics). But my contributions would be laughable. I'll learn from > > > any contributions I hope others make. I've spent far too little of my > > > life in those domains. > > > > > > [†] Both for the individual trying to decide what to spend their life > > > researching and the whole (as Wolpert points out > > > <https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf>). > > > Most of the prejudice I encounter doesn't seem mean-spirited, though. > > > Even virulent scientismists seem to be victims of their own, personally > > > felt, opportunity costs. > > > > > > On 3/14/20 3:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > > > Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Maybe when Hari Seldon has his psychohistory all worked out it will be > > > > different. :) > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > One could make a very strong argument that most of the Science that > > > > emerged in England in the 1800-2000, including Newton, was derived > > > > from Vedic and some Buddhist philosophies. But try to get a Ph.D. in > > > > any science today with a dissertation proposal that incorporated > > > > Akasa. [The Vedas posited five elements as the constituents of the > > > > universe — Aristotle's four, earth, air, fire, water, plus Akasa, > > > > which is consciousness.] > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove